Indus's page

Hi all,

So I've been playing a Dirge Bard in a heavily gothic, undead-heavy campaign and having a lot of fun with it. My dirge bard is enchantment-focused and loves to play all sorts of mind games with the undead you can't normally do. Great archetype, by the way.

So here's the question. After reading spell description I notice that Cacophonous Call is a WILL SAVE, not fort.

Does this mean a dirge bard (which can cast mind-affecting spells on undead) can nauseate an undead since it is will, not fort?

Thanks!

Hi Mark / Mega-Thread,

Did you ever answer the questions about what "unattended object happens to be nearby" qualified as range? Is it 30ft? 3ft?

Sorry, I've spent about an hour searching this thread and found a few people asking about it but must have missed the answer, if it was there.

Thanks!

Have you checked out the Los Angeles / SoCal Pathfinder Society Facebook group?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/PFSLaGrandLodge/

I hadn't - thanks for pointing that out.

And yes, Rose, we are trying to establish a Pathfinder-dedicated group that will be a recurring event for people to attend. I think part of the reason people meet outside of LA often is the expense of a large space within LA itself, though that can be gotten around by everyone pitching in just a small amount.

Thanks for joining up with our site today. We look forward to seeing you and everyone else at the first meetup. And of course if you know of any PFS GM's who would enjoy running at our location, please point them our way. We would very much like to have a dedicated PFS table and event set up for our first meetup.

Make sure you join up at the LA Grand Lodge Web site on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/PFSLaGrandLodge/.

With over 363 members interested in Pathfinder Society Gaming in the Los Angeles Region I am sure you will find some players interested in joining your games.

There is no charge to join the facebook web site, nor does we charge any fees to promote your public games of PFS.

The LA Grand Lodge is set up to support all the GMs and players in the LA region, and it is good to promote your games on our web site.

Welcome to the community!

Robyn Nixon
Los Angeles Venture Captain
LA Grand Lodge.

Thanks Robyn, we sure will!

We're still looking for a few LA-based Pathfinder players to round out our new meetup, Friday Night Pathfinder.

If you're in the area and looking to run a game or partake of one, check us out!

Indus wrote:

So Parry is considered a combat maneuver then? I couldn't find a definitive answer on that.

By the way, if you're saying Parry is a combat maneuver, then you're saying "Yes", a 20 does auto-parry every attack, since with combat maneuvers a 20 always succeeds.

** spoiler omitted **

"To parry the attack, the duelist makes an attack roll, using the same bonuses as the attack she chose to forego during her previous action."

Nowhere in the language does is say that parry is a combat maneuver, but it is an attack.

The reason it is not a combat maneuver is that it works against the attacker's attack roll, not the CMD, and it uses the attackers attack roll, not their CMB.

So yes, a 20 will auto suceed, but you will not get any bonuses that are applied only to combat manuvers(like agile maneuvers).

Thanks Charender. That was what I thought and wanted to confirm.

This was my read on it as well TG.

Whether an attack roll or a combat maneuver, the 1 / 20 rule should prevail. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some strange Parry errata out there...

So Parry is considered a combat maneuver then? I couldn't find a definitive answer on that.

By the way, if you're saying Parry is a combat maneuver, then you're saying "Yes", a 20 does auto-parry every attack, since with combat maneuvers a 20 always succeeds.

Sorry if I'm missing this somewhere, but I couldn't find it in the Duelists language anywhere.

For duelists (or anyone else parrying, like a swashbuckler) will a natural 20 auto-parry any attack?

Here's the Parry info from Duelist:

Thanks!

I am staying in Valencia CA, but am looking more for non-Friday games. Sounds interesting, tho.

Valencia is not that far of a drive from where we are, so if your schedule ever changes please check in with us!

Even if you can't attend the Friday night games right now, you're welcome to the join the meetup and stay informed. It may be that as more people join, you'll find a group that also plays at other times.

If you haven't already checked in, there is also a Valley meetup group where people sometimes post for Pathfinder games at all times of the week. Check it out here --> http://www.meetup.com/DnDValley/

Hello all,

Myself and some friends are forming a new group for Pathfinder RPG players and gamemasters in the LA area. Starting July 11th, we'll be hosting an event every Friday from around 6 to midnight at a space in the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks area. The location has on-site parking, Wi-Fi, and room enough to have four campaigns running each week.

If you're living in the LA area and want to run a game, join a game, or just meet other Pathfinder enthusiasts, we welcome you to sign up with our new Meetup group (Friday Night Pathfinder), where you can read more about the group and claim a slot for the first Meetup.

Note, this is a private, RSVP-required event, so space is limited. A $10 fee helps us covers the cost of location rental, paid only at the meetups you actually attend.

We're putting the word out a couple months in advance of our first meetup to give GM's and players time to organize into groups. We're also hoping to have a Pathfinder Society table, so if you're a GM interested in running PFS we'd love to hear from you!

If you enjoy playing in or running sessions that involve a nice balance of combat and solid roleplaying then this is the group for you. We're striving to create a community of gamers that seek a mature and truly satisfying RPG experience and to most importantly have fun!

See you at the tables!

Starting in July, a new Pathfinder-exclusive meetup will be taking place in the Los Angeles every Friday night. We have a space reserved to comfortably run four games simultaneously, and we're planning to have at least one of those tables (if not more than one) be a dedicated Pathfinder Society table.

As such, we're looking Society GM's that live in the LA area and would be interested in running Society sessions at our location on Fridays. If you think you might fit that bill and live in LA, let us know. If you think you might fit that bill and don't live in LA - move here!

We're hoping to make this meetup a great place for Pathfinder GM's and players from all around SoCal to gather and make new contacts, start or join new campaigns, and have fun.

If you're interested in joining or just learning more, please checkout our newly minted meetup page --> http://www.meetup.com/fridaynightpathfinder/

Thanks!

So, five years later....is there not enough interest for Paizo to make an official version of these, or have I just missed them somewhere?

When I look, all I see are solutions by individuals like Perram's Spellbook and RPGBooster, etc.., which are fine and handy, but nothing like the spell decks TSR used to sell back in the AD&D days, which were great.

Any news whether or not Paizo will ever release official spell decks? Or do we just keep printing our own?

Thanks, these are great suggestions I'm going to employ.

...there are other uses for secret doors that actually make the game more interesting when they're NOT found.

Ambush. PCs walk past an undetected door and, later, when it's most inconvenient, they get hit from behind by the monsters lurking on the other side of said door.

Confusion. Sneaky enemies lurk behind an undetected secret door and after the party passes, they sneak out and steal PC gear, lock doors behind the PC's escape route, cast Darkness during a PC fight, whatever else comes to mind.

Shortcut. PC miss an undetected secret door, fight their way through armies of monsters and traps, finally find the...

I like to do similar things like what you described above, just to keep the players on their toes. I'm not trying to "defeat" the spells, and 99% of the secret doors I put in there are put there to be found (why else have them?)

The situation that was the impetus for this thread was one involving a secret door I had intended for a BBEG to use but not he PC's. They were too early in the adventure and too low-level to survive the encounter but I knew they would be returning to this same location later at higher levels, so I set the Perception DC for the door at 40 (knowing my Rogue had no chance of making it).

I ADMIT, It was poor planning on my part, not anticipating that someone would cast the spell randomly and begin searching the tunnel. Which got me thinking, what could I have done (other than not having the secret door) if I wanted the BBEG to have this passage, but the PC's have no chance of detecting at their level (for their own protection). That was the reason I put the question out there - to get some ideas from others. And I appreciate all the suggestions made.

Quote:

Walls, Doors, and Detect Spells

Stone walls, iron walls, and iron doors are usually thick enough to block most detect spells, such as detect thoughts. Wooden walls, wooden doors, and stone doors are usually not thick enough to do so. A secret stone door built into a wall and as thick as the wall itself (at least 1 foot) does block most detect spells.

So, just make your walls thick stone. And make them have a switch/lever necessary to move the thick wall in front of it.

Interesting. So how would this work? Would it be like a regular stone door (that is at least 1 foot thick and NOT hidden) with a lever to open it built on top of an actual secret door? If I'm understanding it correctly, the stone door would not "ping" because it is plain sight, and the secret door behind it would not "ping" unless the stone door was opened by the lever?

I'm currently GM'ing for a group and have noticed that a lot of my encounters that involved secret doors are easily handled by this level 1 spell. The group is large enough (5 or 6, depending) that the caster can cast the spell and then concentrate solely on finding all the hidden passages. Because the spell lasts a minute / level and because it apparently finds every secret door regardless of the Perception DC, I'm finding a lot of secret passages I'd like to put on maps are just kind of a waste.

It feels like the spell should grant a +10 to detect secret/hidden doors/compartments instead of a blanket "you find everything, even DC 100 secret doors put there by a god", but it doesn't so oh well.

In any case, I'm wondering if anyone else has had this problem, and what creative solutions they've come up with to solve it?

Here's what I've come with so far:

Throw enemies at party to break concentration (fine, unless you want a suspenseful moment instead of combat...)

Use non-hidden doors that are just hard to detect (fine alternative, but doesn't "fix" the secret door problem)

Spread out your doors on large maps so it takes a long time to get from one to the other (yay, more work for the GM)

Don't use them (seems this is what the rules are pushing me to do)

Any and all suggestions are most welcome!

Chaotic motivations should be chosen to decrease the amount of social or individual constraints. Every now and then I see someone assert that chaotic neutral characters are best described as pure small-"l" libertarians, and I think that's about right. In that sense it's all about allowing individuals to CHOOSE FREELY as opposed to being forced to follow some rule or guideline. In that sense killing an innocent or helpless person is about as anti-chaotic as you can get because you've just removed every freedom that character has or is ever going to have.

That's a good point I hadn't considered.

And, in this case, the player has stated his reasons for the action:

It sounds like the CN rogue in your example felt that the 3 thugs he bled out had already made their choice in terms of doing good or evil when they attacked the party. In the end perhaps the CN rogue was merely doing what he felt no one else had the stomach to do or he wanted to save some of the members from having to struggle with some very tough moral choices. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what he had in mind.... considering I'm the player of the CN rogue ;-)

Based off those comments, you could make an argument that the murdering of the unconscious thugs was more of a Lawful Neutral decision, based on the sense of "They attacked me and almost killed me, so death is what they deserve to prevent this from happening again in the future and protect the party" mentality. I would define that line of thinking as "lawful" in that the thugs were being dealt justice, and "neutral" in that the Rogue believed this to be what they deserved.

Also, I want to say that I regret bringing up the torture now, because what I really wanted to focus on were thugs and not derail the thread with the "torture is always an evil act" debate. Really it comes down to this - the player having stated his reasons for killing the unconscious thugs now so that they're clear, are they within the purview of Chaotic Neutral, or is this a step toward evil?

Sounds like another case of player choosing Chaotic Neutral so they can screw with the party and fall back on the old 'But it's in my alignment!' excuse when they get caught and called on it.

I DO have a player who acts that way, and I have already shifted him to Chaotic Evil (and thrown him in jail for that matter). But in this situation, that's not the case. It's more a differing opinion over what is evil and what is allowable within Chaotic Neutral. Bringing the conversation here was a way to get more insight and hopefully resolve it in a fair way.

Btw, did the OP disappear?

No, I have been chiming in.

Think of what Liam Neeson's character did in Taken.

Well, the Taken scene did come to mind, even as we were playing out the scene. And as I stated earlier, you could make the argument that Jaime Lannister is also a CN character, and the stuff he does is very, very bad indeed. Which is, of course, why I've been giving this so much thought.

You mentioned the CN rogue lit the head thug on fire only to then put him out and let him live after the interrogation. Interesting choice if he is deemed to be shifting towards CE.

I only mention the torture to provide a full scenario of the events. It is the killing of the unconscious foes, some of which had surrendered, that I question more. As we're playing, I find myself asking - Would Riddick do that? Would Conan do that? And so on....

In the end perhaps the CN rogue was merely doing what he felt no one else had the stomach to do or he wanted to save some of the members from having to struggle with some very tough moral choices. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what he had in mind.... considering I'm the player of the CN rogue ;-)

Yes, well, I was wondering when someone from the group would stumble upon this thread - :)

And I'm glad you have. I'll be interested to hear what some of the commentators have to say in response to your explanations. I haven't even gotten into the aspect of a Lawful Good character standing by and doing nothing while the torture took place....but one issue at a time.

Conan is a Chaotic Neutral character. I've never seen, and I can't envision him doing what is related in this thread. Conan would not bleed to death a group of defenseless captives.

I had a similar thought.

Just look at how many people (even WotC) think that Riddick is evil even though Riddick never, ever goes out of his way to harm, control over conquer. He outright hates the idea. He's the epitome of a chaotic neutral character.

I agree that Riddick embodies the CN alignment possibly better than any other popular fiction character with the (you can have an interesting debate on what alignment Jaime Lannister falls under here as well). However, in all the Riddick films I have seen, I've not witnessed a comparable act. In fact, in the movie, Chronicles of Riddick, he does the exact opposite of what my CN Rogue did - that is, he lets a bounty hunter named Toombs - who he knows for a fact will hunt him down if not killed - live (albeit caged in a prison). He could have easily - and justifiably - have killed Toombs, but didn't.

I only point this out because you brought Riddick up, and having seen three of his four films (I haven't seen the latest), I've never witnessed him kill someone not evil. If you think about it, he doesn't even kill anyone in the first movie (Pitch Black) - technically, all he does is wound Johns and let the aliens finish him off.

So yes, I agree, he is definitely Chaotic Neutral. And no, I don't think if Riddick had been in the cell he would have killed the lowly, non-threatening thugs while they were unconscious. Especially if he didn't even bother to kill his arch-nemesis, Toombs, when he had the chance.

By definition, if the choice you are making is a difficult one (ie borderline wrong) but there are no better options, it is not good nor is it evil.

I just want to point out that there were multiple options open to the party. They had yet to explore them, so knowing which was "better" is impossible from their standpoint. Killing them was "easiest", but easiest does not equate to better, therefore your statement does not apply in this case.

The neutral act is the necessary one - torture the wife and child in front of the terrorist in an attempt to get the location of the bomb. (Proving that two wrongs can make a right.)

While I'm not going to debate your above statement, I will say that in this case the theory you posit does not apply, simply because there was no "greater good" being done by killing the unconscious thugs. In your example, the two extremes (a nuke going off in a big city, torturing an innocent woman and child to prevent this) are planted opposite one another to make your point. However, the CN Rogue was not going to save a city full of people by murdering them, nor was he going to save anyone else that he knew of in that moment. He may have felt he was saving himself the trouble of dealing with them again in the future, but that is about it. Therefore the seesaw of "two evils" is not measuring up as it did in your example.

I see the points you are making, I just don't think they're translating over into this scenario as cleanly as you think they are.

Regardless, I thank you for taking the time post in the first place, and value your input and everyone else's as well. This is all great food for thought, and hearing the different perspectives is helpful. My goal in the end is to make sure everyone at the table is engaged and having a good time, and it may be that I hold off making any decision until I sense it becoming an impediment toward that goal.

Replying to my earlier post because some of the details seem to have gotten lost during the course of discussion.

To answer the "why did he do it" question, my feeling is that he wanted to eliminate future trouble (aka the thugs hunting him down for retribution) and also for convenience to simplify / control the situation. What I mean by simplify is that, yes, there is a Lawful Good character in the party (who was away with the rest of the party when this happened, keep in mind) and I think he didn't want to have to deal with the LG character insisting on hauling them into the authorities.

Additionally, I'll add that two out of the three of these thugs had thrown down their weapons and surrendered before they were knocked unconscious. Furthermore, all three were tied up with rope and locked inside a jail cell for safekeeping. The CN Rogue was just there to "keep any eye on them".

So yes, he is lying to the party about it because many/most of them are good alignments and would not approve, and he knows this.

Foghammer, to answer your question the Rogue's intelligence is 14.

Shaman, the situation was that the party was moving through the city at night when they witnessed a kidnapping and went to investigate the building where the victim was taken. They were told by two men guarding the building to buzz off, and so they snuck around the back of the building, alerted some guard dogs, and a melee ensued. The party ran and hid, but later returned in hopes of sneaking in. The thugs were expecting trouble, so they engaged the party in battle, in which the party was able to handle the thugs, their dogs, and the thug leader - ALL of whom were disabled by the end of battle. (And again, two of the thugs threw down their weapons and surrendered). The party then went inside the building through a cellar door, found a room with holding cells and decided to tie up the unconscious thugs and their boss and put them holding cells.

Now, the idea was to interrogate the thugs and their boss after searching the upstairs of the house for more possible enemies. The CN Rogue offered to keep an eye on the unconscious foes while the rest of the party, three of which were good alignments and one lawful good, went upstairs. It was during this time the player passed me a note letting me know that he "reopens" the injuries on the thugs so they bleed out. He is very careful to make sure the cells are locked and everything in place before the rest of the group returns.

The rogue DOES let the thug boss live to interrogate later, but the "grunts" are just killed off. Again, it seems the motivation, the "why" is for convenience sake - not having to deal with a bunch of injured enemies when he knows the Lawful Good character might want them brought in to local authorities.

leo1925, as far as the party can tell, the thugs are robbers and/or slavers

Additionally, I'll just add that no one in the party did a "Detect Evil" on the thugs after they were disabled. The party did not find any kidnap victims on the premises. They did find evidence of smuggling. The thugs were attacking with bolts laced with drow poison (I only mention because their intent seemed to be "capture" not kill)

Last, yes, the party did interrogate the boss later that night. The CN Rogue poured kerosene on him, lit him on fire, and then "put out the flames" so as not to kill him. While the other players weren't their for the slayings of the thugs, they did witness this and objected (though not strongly enough for their Lawful Good alignments in my opinion). But that is a whole other issue I'm having to deal with and I didn't want to derail this thread from the main question of the CN Rogue's actions with the disabled thugs.

Hope that clarifies things somewhat, though I fear the amount of detail may just muddle it even further at this point.

I appreciate all the perspectives offered here. They are are helpful.

To answer the "why did he do it" question, my feeling is that he wanted to eliminate future trouble (aka the thugs hunting him down for retribution) and also for convenience to simplify / control the situation. What I mean by simplify is that, yes, there is a Lawful Good character in the party (who was away with the rest of the party when this happened, keep in mind) and I think he didn't want to have to deal with the LG character insisting on hauling them into the authorities.

Additionally, I'll add that two out of the three of these thugs had thrown down their weapons and surrendered before they were knocked unconscious. Furthermore, all three were tied up with rope and locked inside a jail cell for safekeeping. The CN Rogue was just there to "keep any eye on them".

So yes, he is lying to the party about it because many/most of them are good alignments and would not approve, and he knows this.

Again, I appreciate people's opinions on this, because I'm not sure how to handle it correctly and want to be fair.

Thank you.

Need some help here.

Here's the situation, in brief: Party encounters thugs / criminals who assault party. Party defeats thugs, disabling (but not killing) the enemies (they stabilize). The party then splits up - CN Rogue stays with the unconscious thugs, rest of group searches building for more enemies to secure the grounds.

While the party is gone, CN Rogue secretly (through a note to GM) injures all the disabled baddies, so they "bleed out", dying before the others return. When others return, he feigns ignorance (backed up by Bluff rolls) and convinces his comrades he doesn't know what happened to baddies.

So I need your advice:

1) Is the act of "finishing off" disabled enemies an act that falls within the very gray purview of Chaotic Neutral, or does this press toward evil?

2) If it presses toward evil, by how much? All the way to Chaotic Evil? Half way?

3) How do you handle this sort of thing in game?

Thanks for any help. Chaotic Neutral is an alignment that gets defined many different ways, and this situation is giving me trouble.

Can a player use plant shape spells to become plants that aren't published plant-type creatures? If a character (druid) wants to become a normal bush in someone's garden to spy on them, can they do so? (as opposed to selecting something like assassin's vine, which might draw notice). For that matter, what about a normal tree, like oak or apple or something?

Thanks!

So, I'm guessing the FAQ on this never happened? Last weeks' game darkness/deeper darkness situation happened. Debate ensued.

FAQ please?

I've used my method for awhile, again, it's home brew, so rules nazis beware but. Adding a carriage to a horse gives it a CMD of 28. Which is tough for lower level characters, but not impossible for the Brock Samson's of the Pathfinder world.

Thanks Fox, I think I'll try that and see how it goes.

If the horse is successfully grappled, it will no longer be able to move on its next turn except by breaking the grapple.

Okay. But I notice the CMD for horse is 17 - doesn't that seem a little low for this situation? (Horse is running, pulling a small carriage, player wants to basically grab it rodeo style to slow / stop the carriage) Given that the horse is at a full run and hauling this vehicle behind that has mass, shouldn't there be some adjustments to the CMD?

I guess what I was looking for were any rules describing a situation where a creature attempt to grapple another creature at a full run - basically, a tackle. Logically, it's much more difficult to grapple something moving fast than it is something standing still.

Thanks everyone for the advice / and help!

Been looking through the rules and reading posts about grappling on the boards here, but haven't found the magic answer.

Basically, here's the situation:

Runaway carriage drawn by a horse, player decides to attempt a grapple as the horse comes charging by and bring it to a stop (somehow?)....

Okay, how do you handle this?

I guess I could broaden my question a bit here and try and come at it that way.

So let's try this:

Is it made clear anywhere whether or not you can take a standard action while feather falling?

Is there any rule that specifically states you cannot?

Beware where you go with this. Could a feather falling player have combat rounds with a flying opponent? Unless you can find something official floating around (pun intended), I suggest you read it as while feather falling the only action a player can take is the move action to "fall." Unless of course, this is the style of game you want.

I guess this is what I'm sniffing around for - a more definitive answer that I'm not sure exists. From what I've read, just perusing gaming forums, is that the majority consensus is that you could cast a spell while feather falling. Some contend that a Concentration check would be necessary, others do not. Very few outlaw it all right.

But those are just opinions, and it would be lovely to have something a bit more concrete, as I know this question has been around forever (well, forever with myself, at least, who loves to employ tactics such as the ones Kyaaadaa described above). I get the feeling, however, that it's one of those mechanics that the devs are just leaving up to GM's to rule as they want, but sure would be nice if the RAI could be more steadily relied upon - cause they sure can make for interesting combat situations!

Anyone remember if there was ever an official ruling on this in 3.5?

Anyone know?

Can it be done? I've searched and found many opinions but no official rulings.

Example situation. Caster wearing Ring of Feather Falling jumps off castle parapet 100ft up and fires a Fireball into melee in courtyard below. Yea? Nay? Totally GM dependent?

THanks!

It's not a spell but a supernatural ability, as such it's not affected by metamagic, nor does it count as a cure spell (which is easily identified by having cure in its name).

Thanks for the clarification - that's what I thought, but wanted to be sure.

Did a search, maybe I didn't type right words, but didn't find answer.

Just want to know if a cleric's Channel Energy is effected by

1) Empower metamagic

and/or

2) Healing Domain's power Healer's Blessing

Healer's Blessing (Su): At 6th level, all of your cure spells are treated as if they were empowered, increasing the amount of damage healed by half (+50%). This does not apply to damage dealt to undead with a cure spell. This does not stack with the Empower Spell metamagic feat.

Cause I've had one DM say the Channel was empowered by Healer's Blessing, and another say it doesn't because it is not a cure spell.

Thanks for any clarification!