Hargor's page

Hallo,

i want to cancel all my subscriptions.

TorresGlitch wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

isn't the term hustle?

I agree. The penalty for a hustle is -10 (according to the only applicable stealthing rules found under 'invisibility').

I believe 'full speed' equals your 'base speed' and by spending two move-actions moving allows one to surpass the typical 30ft by moving faster.
So the feat wouldn't aid you when moving beyond your base speed (hustling, running, charging etc).

This is not correct. Two separate move actions at your base speed (e.g. 30 for humans) is still "moving normal speed". You're just doing it twice in the same round. Alternatively, you could do it once and then stop moving to swing a sword or cast a spell or some such. In either case, each move action is your base speed.

Bandw2 wrote:

i feel vindicated

Don't. You weren't.

Samasboy1 wrote:

The -10 penalty is for moving "full speed." Which is exactly the penalty that the feat is getting rid of.

In this case, moving "full speed" would be moving your full base speed as a move action. You could still make two such actions in one round and still only be moving "full speed." To move faster than this, you have to "Run" which you cannot do while using Stealth, and imparts a bigger penalty if using Invisibility.

This is correct.

This definitely NOT correct!

You have to take several definitions into account.

First
Definition of Speed:
Rules Link

Speed

Your speed tells you how far you can move in a round and still do something, such as attack or cast a spell. Your speed depends mostly on your size and your armor.

Dwarves, gnomes, and halflings have a speed of 20 feet (4 squares), or 15 feet (3 squares) when wearing medium or heavy armor (except for dwarves, who move 20 feet in any armor).

Humans, elves, half-elves, half-orcs, and most humanoid monsters have a speed of 30 feet (6 squares), or 20 feet (4 squares) in medium or heavy armor.

If you use two move actions in a round (sometimes called a "double move" action), you can move up to double your speed. If you spend the entire round running, you can move up to quadruple your speed (or triple if you are in heavy armor).

Second

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.

So with a "double move" you move more than you speed up to DOUBLE your speed and acrobatics states that you can use acrobatics at FULL speed (not DOUBLE speed).

The most significant point is that speed is not how far you can move per action but PER ROUND. So it is not relevant if you use one or two actions to get somewhere but how far you actually move in that round.

Golarion drow don't have the spider fetish, at least most of them. Some follow the demon lord of vermin, Mazzmez - those might be into creepy little archanids.

Hi Gorbacz and all others,

there must be a connection between Drow and Spiders because there are Drider.

The connection might be Rovagug as he/it created the monsters AND the Drow.

But both are related to speed. ;)

Hi,

i have a concern about a Double Move with half speed to avoid the -5 penalty. Why?

Look at:

Swift Tracker (Ex): Beginning at 8th level, a ranger can move at his normal speed while using Survival to follow tracks without taking the normal –5 penalty. He takes only a –10 penalty (instead of the normal –20) when moving at up to twice normal speed while tracking.

So if i read it right the penalty for tracking is not based on move actions per round but on the value of speed itself.

Otherwise the second sentence (bold) would make no sense.

Damn cliffhangers. :)

Hello everyone,

i am sorry but i can't find the Pitax that is decribed in AP #35 in your postings.

First Pitax has the following statistics in the River Kingdom source book:

PITAX

Small City autocracy (single ruler); AL CN
DEMOGRAPHICS
Population 8,790

Pitax in AP #35

CN small city
Corruption +4; Crime +2; Economy +4; Law +3; Lore +4;
Society +0
Qualities academic, notorious, strategic location,
tourist attraction
Danger +15
Demographics
Government overlord
Population 5,781 (5,600 humans; 100 half-elves; 40 dwarves;
41 other)

If i compare this with Fort Drelev in AP #34 where the relation between the "official" numbers (1360) and the people count by the Kingdom Building rules (5750) is approx. 1 to 4.25 the Population of Pitax in the Kingdom Building Rules might be approx 37500 inhabitants which is 5 city districts with the last one only containing little more than one city block.

Now there are only three further "cities" mentioned in the books:

Mormouth

A fishing village north west of Pitax.

Sarain

The vineyard city at the border between Pitax and Mivon and a constant battleground of both Kingdoms.

Both "cities" seem to be outside the map of the Kingmaker campaign.

Now my assumption:

Since Pitax is constantly in an internal quarrel it has never
expanded far from it's heart - the city itself.

Only the "road" hexes of the Kingmaker map of Pitax are claimed (obvious because of the roads) and covered with farms. Also all adjacent hexes of Pitax itself are claimed and farmland (vineyards are mentioned around Pitax City itself and there is a hint that Pitax lacks ore of any kind and must import it).

So the Pitax Kingdom itself has a size of 9 Hexes with 6 of them being farmland. (maybe double the size for the "hexes" lying outside of the map).

Turin's model of the City itself looks reasonable though i miss the tenements for the New Ruins area.

This is my view to Pitax as a kingdom build by the Kingdom rules and the other sources.

Hello everybody,

i would just change the wording of the Uncanny Dodge rules

Original wording:

Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, even if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.

New wording:

Uncanny Dodge (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She doesn't loose der Dexterity bonus to AC even if caught flat-footed or the attacker is invisible. She is still considered to be flat-footed.

So most of the other feats would work, since the condition is in effect but the rogue retains her Dextery Bonus.

Hello,

some corrections to previous posts:

@DarthEnder

Also, Sap Master says it has to be a BLUDGEONING nonlethal weapon.

So I don't see how it can be used with a gun...

EDIT: Nm, I see all the guns are listed as "B and P" so I'm guessing there's some kind of blunt ammo type.

This is not completely correct.

Whenever you use a bludgeoning weapon to deal nonlethal sneak attack damage,...

and

Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

So if you accept -4 to do nonlethal damage with a 'normal' bludgeoning you can do the extra damage. Though ranged weapons are not possible as you mentioned right.

@serveral others

The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC...

Several of you argued that only flat-footed opponents can be sneak attacked. As you can read above this is not true. To be flat-footed is ONE of the conditions when you are denied of your Dextery Bonus to AC. To be stunned is another condition applies.

@Sleet Storm and Mortavisu
If i understand the Sap Adept and Sap Master combo right, a 20th level rogue with those feats would do 20d6 + 40 points of nonlethal damage additionaly to any weapon damage if the Sneak Attack is successful.

I'm trying to get my group to consider breaking each pathfinder hex into seven smaller hexes or adjust the one development only. 124 square mile farms just don't make much sense for a fantasy environment, at 18 square mile hexes it starts getting closer to historical precedents.

What I'd like to consider is adding a set of rules to loosely govern what happens when you have a district full of monuments, or your city of four districts only has one tavern. My group has been talking about setting up some role play guidelines for consequences of not having certain types of buildings in a district or city.

I guess the major misconception is that PCs actually build farms when it is done in the Kingdom Building metagame.

If you only claim hexes you grant the people there the right to build their huts there and have a tiny farm to support their own living.

Since the Stolen Lands are harsh lands with severe winters and short and hot winters i guess "Farms" especially in hill areas are mostly sheep led to from one meager hill meadow to the other by hardy shepherds. Only the some lush areas to the south protected by the woods of the Narlmarshes provide grain producing.

So, an upcomeing kingdom in the Stolen Lands will make it's wealth by magic trade and conquering unclaimed lands from monsters and bandits instead of agriculture.

Hello everyone,

how do you handle especially Cavalier and Paladin armies?
Cavaliers always have a mount as a companion and Paladins of lvl 5 and higher might have a mount too.

So i decided that an army of Cavaliers or lvl 5 Paladins has the mount resource without extra consumption because the mount is a clas feature.

Secondly Cavaliers have the Cavalry Expert tactic automatically (who has ist if not a Caval(r)ier).

But how do you handle the Paladin's Lay on Hands? Consumption free Healing Potions?

Hello fellow GM's,

my group has no records what happened to the treasure (which was originally looted by the Rogue who kept it tightly in the Bag of Holding and is sorrily not present atm) they found in Varnhold.
So it seems they spoiled the Quest but since they have the Tomb Treasure they might replace the coins with their own wealth.
This is a very personal deed and can qualify of resolving the quest.

Now my questions:

If they share their wealth do you think it qualifies for solving the quest?

And if they don't do they have to annex Varnhold hex by hex if they want it instead of getting th Varnland property of 19 hexes at once?

Zje topic is a very nice one, because it offers many opportuinties of RP outside of the AP to happen.

e. g. my players - who are the Founders - have decided that with achieving the Duchy state, every founder 'owns' 2 hexes as a personal feud while all NPCs in the 'crown council' - all NPCs with a leadership role- have one hex as a personal feud. All other hexes are ruled by a low noble NPC because they decided to have an aristocratic rulership.
I ruled that one hex produces 10 x tax level (none => 0 to overwhelming => 3) gp per month of tax income for personal use of the owner.
They also decided that the Capital and the surrounding lands (7 hexes) and the Abandoned Ferry Station at the Shrike are crown land and give the ruler an income of 5 gp per tax lvl per hex.
So as long as one of the PCs has the Ruler leadership role, s/he will get additional money.
I did some ruling for all leadership roles and their additional income (Grand Diplomat gets 'gifts' from merchants, the magister has the opportunity to answer a very specialized 'science' question to wealthy requesters and don't ask about the spymaster :D )

So the PCs 'own' not all of the land but certainly have some privileged estates. And certainly they can house one building a house, mansion or noble villa for free if they decide to build those in their cities.
The major is that they don't own everything but also are not the beggar princes of their own land.

Additionally all members of the crown council have a free Extravagant lifestyle when stying in the Capital or rich when in any hex of their kingdom.

Pardon my asking, but have any reasons been given for why a Mansion costs 10 Build Points but only gives a +1 to Stability? That seems like an awfully high BP cost for what is effectively a very small benefit.

Should I lower the cost, change the benefits it grants, or just leave it be?

Hi Eric,

you are right. The costs of q mansion look too for a +1 modifier. On the other hand you can cut down the cost to half by building a Noble Villa in your City and it is more appropriate to have mansions for your richer people in your cities than "simple" houses.
:D

Hi,

these some nice laws you designed.
BUT.... why did you make them instead of your 'rulers'?

In my group all the players had to provide the laws.
They designed some kind of imperial Rome senate.

The players are the Founders Council.
All PCs and the NPCs with a leadership role are the Crown Council.

The Founders Council constitutes and decides about the High Law. This includes the confirmation of new leaders in the Crown Council, declarations of war and judging and punishing members of the Crown Council.

The Crown Council decides about the developement of the kingdom and manages the daily duties. More important is the fact that every member of the Crown Council can speak Low Law. These are the rules and laws that suit for all other folks in the kingdom including low nobles.

My players have written down the High Law and decided that the Low Law is provided in the situation.

I admit that i proposed some laws ans rules at playing the NPC leaders but players had to decide whether they accept or not those laws and rules.

Cleverly they decided all Founders count twice in votes of the Crown Council and in case of a tie the Baron/Duke/King has one additional vote.

So the players have much control over their kingdom and provide support and delegate responsibility to the NPCs.

Hmmm...

since my group consist of a human paladin (now Duke), a half-elf ranger/cavalier (switched from general to magister, long story), an elf (ranger/rogue/assassin - bought a ring of magic aura to hide from the paladin and is LE) and gnome sorceress (gold dragon bloodline who ist now grand diplomat) they are thinking more dynastical than romantic.

So the Duke is going to marry his paladin cohort from Taldor. The Magister is not envolved in romantic affairs but he will be trust me.

The elf is surly the one that will be coupled latest.Since the PCs are the four members of the Founders Council that effectively has all the political power in his hands and they decided that these members can announce a heir that only has to be approved by the Founders Council itself i guess he maybe choose someone and announce him/her heir without biological interaction.

The gnome did as gnomes do. She looked for male gnome (interracial relations including gnomes are infertile on Golarion) had some bed sports with him and when she got pregnant waved him goodbye. Usual gnomish behaviour. She now has a one foot 'tall' curious girl of 2 months that due to the incredible fast developing mobility of gnomish childs (crawl within 6 weeks, walk less than 6 months) is a constant hesitation to the Duke's Staff. And she (the baby) allied with Munguk the Giant (Rivers run Red) who is the Duchy's Royal Assassin/Executioner.

Crest of the Duchy of Helýanca

I like the idea thogh i will not do it like this.

What i do instead is giving the players regular reports of the surrounding "nations" based on the role as a leader.

e. g. the player who is the actual spymaster gets the AP rumors as reports from his spy network regularly.

My plaers established a crown court that involves all Leader PCs and NPCs to meet regularly in the court week (the one week a leader at least to give the kingdom teh role benefit). There they present there infomation the way they like to do it. So the PCs get the information but mostly interpreted by the one who ist "responsible" for the issue.
Our spymaster is the one who interprets alot.

This leads to very intense discussions about the way to rule the kingdom in a very RP way. Those discussion seldom are driven by the mechanics but more by the personality and the interest of the players.

We just ending RrR but the general has stressed that he needs an army and though they don't need one they soon will have one.

On the other hand i offered them some hippogriff hatchlings from a exotic pet trader (very high economics as kingdom stat) and they offered him that he could have a hatchery for hippogriffs if they can have the first pick on these exotic mounts. I told them to place one exotic craftsman AND stable in one city district to give the trader his workplace.
So they could have an army of hippogriff cavalry by roleplaying a leader.

Kingdom: Helýanca
These are they first two letters of the PCs surnames.

Capital: Stormhold
Since it was a stormy night when the defeated.

Yeah, like I wrote. My PCs capital has a defense score of over 80, and full barracks and garrisons with lv7 or 8 warriors. As the mass combat system is written, an army of 2000 tarrasques riding 2000 great red wyrms need a 20 on the offensive roll to do 1 damage to the defending army. The siege would last until either side had rolled enough 20s to defeat either, likely several hundred, if not thousands of combat phases later.

Sure, they would flee due to the dragons' fear aura, but that is the only way anything could realistically take a city.

This is what made me disregard the whole Mass Combat rules as anything but background stuff I control as a GM, and use Party Battles instead, where the PCs have to react to super elite monsters and NPCs attempts to do stuff to bypass defenses, and just let the tedious "roll 20 to do anything" battles play out in the background.

Because seriously, how in the nine hells are a bunch of lv1-7 warriors going to defend themselves against incorporeal spellcasters with fear auras, or invisible flying monsters with breath weapons, or teleporting strike teams of 5-10 CR10+ dudes?

Defense scores and army combat is all well and dandy against mundane opposition. But when you are throwing marvel super villains and godzilla at them, I just don't see how a bunch of dudes that need a nat 20 only to fail to penetrate DR can make much of a difference.

I think this is easy.

Siege Engines (15 BP per engine): Your army includes catapults, trebuchets, ballistae, rams, and other siege engines designed to break down fortifications. Increase OM by +2 (regardless of the total number of siege engines you control); each round of the melee phase, reduce the enemy’s bonus to DV from fortifications by 1d4 points per siege engine your army controls.

So after several days of siege the defences are down. And you can argue that your mentioned tarrasques are living siege engines so the DV of your PCs city are down within one mass combat phase.

I think KM has no need for demons or devils.
It has it's own unique villains and i guess most groups will be surprised who is the BEG in the end.
And there are demons and daemons in the AP but they are not the main issue of the campaign.

The big devil campaign is the CoT campaign.

See Invisibility is a personal spell, and personal spells can't be put into potions :-)

Sorry, this is wrong.

A potion is a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed. Potions vary incredibly in appearance. Magic oils are similar to potions, except that oils are applied externally rather than imbibed. A potion or oil can be used only once. It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures.

and

Whoever drinks the potion is the target of the spell.

So See Invisible is a viable option for a potion.

All above posts have a very modern and animal-caring view on horses and how they are cared about.

Considering a medival surrounding with some more education than in human history i would consider that packing two horses in one booth of the stable of Oleg's Tradepost would be more suitable than building a corral.

Why?

If you look at the Wandering Monsters table of Stolen Lands you even can have a troll strolling around the outpost.
Having several horses in an outside corral is like posting a bright sign upon them saying "Food for free!".

Better cramping the stable than loosing a horse.

Additionally you can have the horses hobbled inside the palisades and feed them by the Levetons.

If you look at the tradepost you will recognize that the soldiers of the detachment led by Kesten Garess have also no room inside it.
As a GM i decided that the soldiers had heir tents placed beneath the battlements of the tradepost. This provides enough cover from the environment.

BTW,

removing the Sootscales removes also an allied army in the long run.

Hehe,

my player's kingdom has Munguk, the hill giant, as the master assassin.
He acts the kingdom's executioner what makes everyone very loyal.

"Have you seen the rustler's execution yeterday!"
"Oh, yeah Councilor Munguk asked 'Ready?' and at the end of the rustler's nod it's nose hit the ground with a thud. The hulky giant asked 'Anyun else?' and the audience scattered quickly."
"Never saw a creature swinging the axe like a child's shovel!"
"Hope i don't see this from double arms length! May Erastil prevail, bye!"

:D

Hi,

i am just DMing KM in second Module and just started SfSS.
What involved my PCs pretty much is - as mentioned several time before in this thread - interaction with the NPCs.

There is a problem if your players are not interested in social interaction but i stressed out especially on the Shiv that the boring "survival" thing would be a major issue if they don't get the NPCs involved in managing the base camp.
I did similar things in the KM AP where most major NPCs are now members of the Crown Council of the country and every fourth week members (including the PCs) presents their work in the "Meeting Week".

I see the concern about having nothing completely new in every AP but i guess Serpent's Skull has several themes in it that are based on popular movies and TV series (Souls is much like the beginning of LOST, Racing to Ruin is the Indiana Jones theme the Seven Spears have a Stargate Universe touch and so on.)

My conclusion is if the GM doesn't manage to get the PCs get involved into the story either by personally involve them in the plot or establishing a personal link to NPCs that are involved no AP will work properly.
A mercenary background of the PC has his drawback in the issue that if the payroll ist empty there is no matter for them to stay (if they strictly play the gold grabbing type).

IMO the APs are neither bad nor good. I like them but i can understand that others might not.

If you you manage to involve you players or get involved as a player Serpent's Skull has something to excite you. But you have to find that hook.

Hello everyone,

does anyone have seen the small concern a GM can have with small sized druids in the AP #37.
Allowing a Roc or a Quetzalcoatlus for those druids those might have no problem flying away from the Isle.

Would you restrict the druid to get those companions?

Hello erveryone,

do you think an Abyssal Tiefling PC is suitable for the Razortusk feat?

As i read through the posts of this thread a mostly agreed with all opinions but i can unserstand the difficulty of the creator of this thread when you as a GM have to decide whether the "role-played" insult distracts or not distracts the enemy.

You can reasonably always argue that the one frying you with magic is always taunting more than the one just shouting at you insulting you're mother you have no love for because she left you and your family when you were 3.

But on the other side taunting your sister a whore that saved you from starvation and freezing in your youth will surely enrage you beat the dirt-mouthed swordswinger to the ground and pound him to pieces until he laughs.

So the decision in any "social" situation is always: Does your "argueing" impress the NPC?

The rules for those interactions are solved by the core rules in serveral ways.
Nearly always there is a skill check against DC based on the HD/lvl of the NPC when used in combat.

The problem with taunts is that PCs and NPCs have the same options in Pathfinder.

Forcing a player to fight a certain foe is non-fun. Part of the pleasure of combat is choosing from a range of options and losing those options is annoying.
The occasional spell that controls your character is okay but regularly being forced to fight a certain foe would be boring.
As others have said, RP is the way to go, it's also one of the things that makes tabletop RPGs distinctive from computer rpgs.

@GeraintElberion

So my opinion is:
If you accept taunting as a combat based mind-effecting action like Demoralize or a "Charm Person" "Fear" or other spell you should use either Intimidate or Bluff for this purpose because in both cases the core rules cover their use in a combat round concerning actions DC etc.
Diplomacy does not cover those circumstances and inventing a new skill is not necessary.

And be aware to tilt the map by 60° counterclockwise to match it to the hex grid. :D

Since the Old Sycamor is a landmark and only the entrance to the lair is hidden the PCs of my group, though heading for the kobolds, stayed and watched the tree for a night and recognized a mites huntig party getting out and in. So they knew where the entrance is.
My PCs tried then to smoke the mites by throwing burning wet wood and debris into the entrance and covering it with wet soken blankets.
That led to a seemingly burning Old Sycamore with no effect on the mites since the lair is fairly large and i assume enough mole and mouse holes to let the smoke pass and leave the mites safe in the lower parts of the lair.

Without an visible effect they left and met the kobolds. After the negotitions with the chieftain and the "shaman" they are now out to kill the mites.

Me and my group just started our kingdom last session.

We built the kingdom and cities for 13 month and it really started to grow now. I have 2 questions:

1., Taxation seems really unimportant. The potential to get +4 for the Economy check is really not worth to get the penalty for Loyalty.
Is it only there to get a bonus to the check if you need it? I thought from the name that it is really important to tax if you need more income.

2., During our 13 month of kingdom play unrest did not was an issue. To be honest I think it is too easy to get the kingdom running if you fill all the leadership roles. Can you tell me some common mistakes, cause I really think we did something really wrong, or overlooked some rules.

Thanks

Hi Attila,

1. You are right taxation as always is not as beneficial as it seems. I think a kingdom without a taxation edict should pay double upkeep because most of the investments in new infrastructure is paid by taxes.

2. Where did your group get those 5 to 8 loyal NPC rulers that you need to keep the kingdom running?

Hey all,

I’ve been planning on dropping some more clues for the PCs over the first three adventures that will make the extent of Nyrissa’s sponsorship of their enemies a little more apparent—as it stands now, I feel like there will be next to no warning for the stuff that goes down in the sixth installment. There’s simply no way for the PCs to appreciate the fact that she’s been working against them since first level.

My first idea was pretty small: make something of the Stag Lord's incorporate the lock of Nyrissa's hair he woke up holding after his dream. I'm thinking his amulet would be the best candidate. It would make sense that his prior success was partly due to her inspiration, and would tie in nicely with the ring the PCs will find in the Owlbear's lair at the end of the second module. In fact, I was thinking of making the amulet cursed as well--probably making all animals refuse to come within 30 feet of the bearer, or become hostile towards him (this will make riding pretty difficult for the cursed character).

My second idea is a little more involved. Given how excited my players are at owning their own gold mine (they've stopped by twice to check on it), I was thinking of having a "problem" come up at some point, maybe around the end of the third module (which while a solid adventure, does very little to advance the overall plot of the campaign). The problem: a gang of Derro, their leader once again "inspired" by Nyrissa to cause problems for the PCs, and with yet another cursed magic item using a lock of nymph hair.

By this point the PCs should be wise that someone has been giving out locks of cursed Nymph hair to their enemies. If they’re feeling extra smart, they may even realize that it could be a Nymph, at which point I suspect that they might start asking around among their fey contacts.

This could be problematic—how much would Tyg-titter-tut or Perlivash know about Nyrissa? No idea? Scarred to death of her? Obviously, they shouldn’t reveal too much, but I feel like it would be...

Only one question:

Level76mage wrote:

OK, here's a question and a statement/question: Question is: Will we see rules for highways? I saw earlier that the roads in the rules were not highways, but I could have missed it.

The statement/question is: My DM (He doesn't mind my being here) Let us (The PCs) create a law for our kingdom that required everyone in the city to peace tie their weapons, unless they didn't have special permission, he gave us a +1 bonus to stability as crime cuts down, but I'm not sure that's fair, what do you guys think?

We don't really add many more rules to the kingdom building rules during the course of Kingmaker. What's in #32 is more or less it. That means there won't be rules for highways, nor rules for other forms of government.

At least... not during Kingmaker. These rules are proving quite popular, and I'm relatively sure that, just as we've made traits and haunts and chases and a few other subsystems of rules integral parts of the game (detailed in the upcoming GameMastery Guide or the Advanced Player's Guide) I'm 99% sure that at some point in the future the kingdom and city building rules will be much more expanded in some future supplement. And THAT would be the time where we'd take a lot of the feedback from this first incarnation and polish things up and do some pretty extensive expansions to the basic rules we're starting with in Kingmaker.

Speaking of that i wonder whether there will be an impact from character skills to the kingdom.

Until now the rulers depend only what the gods (dice or buy points) have given them as "natural" resource (Attributes).
But most of the "professional" rulers should als depend on skills.

Or what is a Grand Diplomat without the Diplomacy Skill (which is IMO one of the most fundamental skills for the uprising nobles) or a Magister without an appropriate knowledge?

I recommend to give a ruler a +1 bonus on his role stat for every 5 ranks in an appropriate skill. And only the bonus of the highest skill applies.

Examples are:

Diplomacy is beneficial for any role since you have to handle with people and make them act as you want it.

Ruler (both): Perform (Oratory) since rulers have to convince their folks that they rule right.

Councilor: Sense Motive, Knowledge (Nobility, local) since the Council need to advice the rulers and support them with information about the kingdom.

General: (quite difficult because a General needs to be successful in times of war to be noticed) Knowledge (Geography, local) because a General has to order his troops and to know were to send them for best effect.

Grand Diplomat: Knowledge (Nobility, Geography), Perform (Oratory) as he needs to know how to handle "international" relations and "national" habits and to convince others to respect and support the own kingdom.

High Priest: Perform (Oratory), Sense Motive reflecting the ceremonial issue the highest ecclesiastic person has to perform on the one side and the pastoral duty on the other.

Magister: any Knowledge skill, Spellcraft whether the Magister is either mundane or magical he has to serve as mediator and source of knowledge to the kingdom.

Marshal: Intimidate, Knowledge (Geography, local), Perception, Survival representing the law outside the towns he has to know the area and to find the wrong doers. Enforcing the law is his duty and scaring the law breakers seems to fit.

Royal Assassin: (as difficult as the General because you have to establish a reputation in advance to let it work) Intimidate, Knowledge (local), Sense Motive bullying and knowing or sensing secrets helps an assassin much.

Spymaster: Bluff, Knowledge (local), Perform, Sense Motive knowledge and disguise are the tools of a spy.

Treasurer: Appraise, Profession (accountant*, clerk, scribe), Sense Motive. You have to know and handle the numbers and not be duped.

Warden: (nearly as the Marshal but in town) Intimidate, Knowledge (local), Perception, Sense Motive. Enforcing the law by mostly any approach is the job.

This can lead to a more skillfull leaders.

One Question:

Where can i find the Force of Personality Feat.
It is not in the Core Rules.

And if you want to do the "Main Tank" :D with Sword and Board i would recommend Dodge, Combat Expertise, Shield Focus, Improved Shield Focus etc.

Many players claim that AC is less important but i disagree AC is not avoiding the first primary attack but avoiding any following attacks. And in this context having many HP will let you take the first attack with ease and for some combat rounds.

Shifty wrote:

Hargor wrote:

If it is possible to demoralize several targets with on check what is Dazzling Display good for except as a prerequisite?

A different, and far superior effect.

Intimidate gives the 'shaken' condition, DD on a (very easy roll) has them running away and suffering significantly more substantial penalties of they are trapped and HAVE to fight.

Dazzling Display gives the same condition as intimidate. They both give shaken. Dazzling Display is an aoe use of demoralize.

The problem with the skill's description is the alternating use of singular and plural use of opponent and target.

So you can argue either it is single target use or AOE. Depends on the point of view. Every player will argue that the text mentions it is useable against every opponent within the range and line of sight/sound with one use of the skill.

Will there be an errata to the skill?

Hello rule masters,

i know there is a thread in the archives but there was no final answer to it:

Is Extra Channel as stackable as Extra Ki, Extra Lay On Hands etc.?

Hello rule masters,

i had a little quarrel about the Intimidate (Demoralize) skill which has a description that can be read in two ways:

You can use this skill to frighten your opponents or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.
Check: You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier.
If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities. If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities.
Demoralize: You can use this skill to cause your opponents to become shaken for a number of rounds. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier. If you are successful, the target is shaken for 1 round. This duration increases by 1 round for every 5 by which you beat the DC. You can only threaten opponents in this way if they are within 30 feet and can
clearly see and hear you.
Action: Using Intimidate to change an opponent’s attitude requires 1 minute of conversation. Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action.
Try Again: You can attempt to Intimidate an opponent again, but each additional check increases the DC by +5.
This increase resets after 1 hour has passed.
Special: You also gain a +4 bonus on Intimidate checks if you are larger than your target and a –4 penalty on Intimidate checks if you are smaller than your target.
If you have the Persuasive feat, you get a bonus on Intimidate checks (see Chapter 5).
A half-orc gets a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks.

If you look at the bold phrases the skill can either be read to be ony effective against on target or against several targets.

Players tend to read it for several targets :D

If it is possible to demoralize several targets with on check what is Dazzling Display good for except as a prerequisite?

What you're PROBABLY looking for isn't really Stealth, it's Hide In Plain Sight.

So your situation is this..

You have a corridor. You have a guard.

Here are some viable options..

Is it a well lit corridor? Because if there isn't, you can still hide in the shadows.

Is it night time? If it is, the guard could get sleepy.. stealth up to him when he falls asleep.

How about a distraction? ALTER the guard, make him come to you and sneak past.

Here's where the DM has got you..

It's a well lit corridor with a guard that doesn't sleep and summons more guards when you try to distraction him.

..summons more guards when you try to distraction him. ..

In addition, if you have a natural attack that isn't obviated by wielding a weapon, you can take those in addition to your full run of iterative weapon attacks. So, say you have a bite attack, 2 claws, are wielding a greatsword and have a BAB of +6. The claws are being used to wield the weapon, so you get two attacks with the sword (from BAB) plus your bite attack on a full attack. The attack bonuses (respectively) +6/+1/+1. If you were just wielding a longsword (and no shield) you would get two attacks with the sword, one claw and one bite. Their respective attack bonuses would be +6/+1/+1/+1.

I am happy that you are wrong with attack sequence.

The speed restrictions in the spell ( half speed up/down ) made me think about it.
It can lead to the opinion that though the air is trated as solid ground it might be difficult terrain like walking on steps even if you are moving at the same height level.

That could limit the speed to walks. The Fly spell has clear rules on that at Pathfinder RPG but the SRD has not.

DM_Blake wrote:

The spell puts a speed limit on upward and on downward travel (though I would think downward travel could be quite qiuck, like running down a hill).

Umm.. no.. it doesn't. Unless you mean that it is done at half speed.

Hello everybody,

in my group there was the question whether you can or can't do a double move/run action while "Air Walking".

Are ther any suggestions?

Hello,

there is one sentence in the original DMG 3.5 anf Paizo Beta Rules that helps definitly:

"Invisibility does not thwart detect spells." DMG p. 296/PPHB p. 396

IMO you can use Detect Magic to recognize and pinpoint a stationary or slow moving invisible object/creature.

The rule that it takes 3 rounds to ONLY pinpoint the Invisibilty spell derives from the description of the Detect Magic spell.

Following the assumptions from above you will moan even more about Arcane Sight which is the upgrade of Detect magic at Spell Level 3 though even you if pinpoint the invisble creature by these spells the miss chance by concealment still applies.

I read all spell descripitions of teh three spells and Transformation hast the least changes from SRD 3.5.

The Devine Power and Righteous have tuned down but still have their impact on the fighting power of a combat orientated cleric.

Except the Barbarian all other melee classes can't raise their damage output defensives and last but not least range of their melee attacks like a cleric.
And the Barbarian sacrifices defence for his powers.

Hello,

if i read the entrance in the Beta Rules right only DR can be overcome by the associated magic bonus but not Special Qulities like Regeneration.

So any +5 Magic Weapon will overcame any DR but not stop Regeneration that is overcome only by the "real" materials.

So the Pit Fiend hit with a "simple" +5 Longsword has no DR but regenerates as normal.

I must add to the latest post that some Sorcerer bloodlines are designed for a melee caster (Abyssal/Draconic) and the gap between the fighter and the melee sorcerer will be closed at lvl 12+ when the Transformation spell comes available.
But i must also admit, that one fighter lvl increases the effictiveness greatly.

But it is the same with comabt clerics, which take over the role of the main melee fighter at lvl 9+ when Divine Power and Righteous Might kick in.

Hello everyone,

i am wondering how to handle an Antimagic Field that is cast by a huge or larger creature.

The text says it is a 10 ft. emanation centered on you but if 'you' are larger than the ever 5'6" medium human, does it extend by your size. So 10 ft. means 10 ft away from you skin or does it mean "ancient dragon antimagicked his belly nothing else".

Any suggestions?

To add some spice to the discussion i throw in:

With Pathfinder RPG Alpha/Beta and D&D 4th a god named Asmoseus has become ruler of Hell.

So there is a "ruler" over all devilhood.

Who is or much more valid are the leading divinities for demons?

One ruler might not fit into the Chaos of the Abyss.