Karlgamer's page

Organized Play Member. 972 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.

3 people marked this as a favorite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Karlgamer wrote:
Here I said stuff

If you want the players to find secret stuff, you should put hints and clues in that they should look where the secret is. If you only want them to find a secret if they're observant, then let the dice fall where they may.

If you want to change things around to match your setup and play style and all that, that's the right call.

Well, I like the idea of the dice falling where they may, however unless I misunderstand how perception works it's possible that the dice might never even get rolled. I'm not sure if they would be intrigued enough by the room even to ask for a perception roll. Then again I could be totally wrong.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Currently, I'm reading the entire Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition to prepare for my next campaign after Kingmaker.

I'm an actor,
I'm dyslexic,
I have other learning disabilities,
I know a little Spanish,
I know a little French,
(Just enough in each to get me into trouble)
and this leads me to mispronounce most of the extraordinary words used in Rise of the Runelords.

While my players are certainly very forgiving of my flaws, I would still rather pronounce things closer to the ballpark then I have been. Kingmaker has been *ahem* challenging.

I'm going to use this thread to ask ALL THE QUESTIONS about pronouncing things for this book and to post my findings.

No hard feeling if people like pronouncing things their own way. That's cool too, but I'm trying to get the closest pronunciation intended.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Warning: this is going to be a discussion about banning certain rules so if you don't like banning this isn't a conversation for you.

I'm on the last section of the last book in Kingmaker. I'm about to start Rise of the Runelords.

I've decided to run Runelords similar to a Society game. No item creation feats, no leadership, etc.

There have been a few things I've found problematic.

Icy Prison(spell)
Dazing spell(feet)

Are there any other spells, feats, etc. that I should consider banning? Why?

I'm certainly willing to hear compromises but these item are definitely problems as they stand.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xaratherus wrote:

SLAs definitely do count as meeting prerequisites for PrCs, so you are incorrect in that assertion.

You are correct when you say that it would count as divine.

You are incorrect when you state that the plural 'spells' means you must be able to cast more than one spell; you need only be able to cast one spell (or spell-like ability, as the case may be) of the appropriate level to qualify.

I have been squarely owned.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, it seems that the limiting of free actions was a mistake.

They probably should just make some changes to the actual classes that cause the broken builds.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
The problem that so many people are having trouble wrapping their head around is that 'Attack' (proper term) is not defined in the rules.

There are LOTS of words in the book which aren't defined.

The action which is an attack isn't one of them. We call it attack action.

The word attack is use throughout the book as a noun, verb and adjective. Not all uses of the word "attack" should be followed by the word "action." because some attacks aren't actions at all.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aunt Tony wrote:
Apparently it wasn't clear enough: you aren't necessarily a schmuck, that's just the status of you, as a stranger on the interwebs, relative to the GM. From his point of view, he doesn't know who you are, doesn't read these forums (as far as I know), and has no motivation to take player-generated advice given here with any degree of seriousness.

Since I don't have anything official to give you, and my experience with rules isn't valued.

I asked:

me wrote:
Does Feather Fall require a concentration check if your falling?

James Jacobs responded:

James Jacobs wrote:
Nope. Does falling normally require a concentration check? I'd say probably not, since as a general rule, you fall too fast to have a chance to cast most spells.

This is a surprising yet typical James Jacobs response.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corren28 wrote:
I stand corrected. :P

Ya, but you deserve props for actually accepting it like a BOSS.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"an attack action" is defined under "Attack" under "Standard actions" under "Action Types"

There are however many other ways to attack without using "an attack action"

If something asks for "an attack action" you have to use a standard action.

I do wish this was worded slightly differently because I hate repeating myself.

It's pretty easy to figure this stuff out, however. Instead of arguing spend some time reading.

If you want to rule that you can sunder as part of a full attack action then as a GM you can do that.

"Rules Questions" is where we discuss how the rules actually are not how we would like them to be.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
And if your friend tells you his music preferences, but you pressure him into showing up anyways, would you be surprised if they ask or suggest music you didn't intend?

How do you pressure someone to show up to your party?

Emotional blackmail?

I have met people/players who want things their way regardless of the situation they are in. They are willing to convince others that their way is superior even if this involves emotional blackmail. Certainly this is true with both GM's and Players.

Irontruth wrote:
Just because your the GM doesn't mean you get to dictate other people's preferences.

Of course not. You do get to dictate how the game is run, which isn't the same thing as dictating your players preferences.

Irontruth wrote:
In a game amongst friends, you should be accommodating to your friends, because the point of a game isn't for the GM to tell a story, it's to play a game.

I agree. Although it isn't that simple.

To rephrase Abraham Lincoln:

"You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not please all of the people all of the time."

Of course Abraham Lincoln didn't use the word "please" he used the word "fool" but I feel it's astute either way.

A GM is also a player, but she isn't just a player, shes the player who spends hours preparing for each session. You can't expect someone to spend hours preparing for something they don't want to do.

Irontruth wrote:
IMO Bad GMing includes putting your story/theme/setting above the enjoyment of your players.

If the GM is held responsible for the enjoyment of the players then the players are also held responsible for the enjoyment of the GM. The relationship has to be give and take. As a player you might have to compromise some of your preferences with your GM.

Just as you can't expect someone to show up for a game they don't want to play you can't expect someone to spend hours preparing for something they don't want to run.

Certainly if no one shows up to your party then you'll be sitting around doing nothing. You can't have a party without people and you can't have a game without players. You should certainly take your players opinions into consideration, but you shouldn't prepare for a game/party which you don't want to run/host.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

My sentiments exactly.

I think of it more like you throw and 60's party and someone whats to play some Dub Step. There is nothing arbitrary about saying "No Dubstep at my 60's party. Only music form the 60's."

The person throwing the party gets to make the decision.

This doesn't mean that the people at the party can't suggest things but they shouldn't be offended if you tell them: "No Dubstep."

I always try to make it clear how I play before the first session.

When players try to force their style on your game it's like a someone playing Dubstep at a 60's party.

It's disrespectfully and it shouldn't be tolerated.

"But I don't like 60's music"

"Why did you come to a 60's party?!?"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pad300 wrote:
Bolding is mine. If you are trying to make an acrobatics check, for example, to cross what appears to be a narrow bridge, you are using acrobatics and are considered flat footed.

Still isn't something silent image can do. Figments cannot make something seem to be something else.

pad300 wrote:
If you are trying to avoid a bunch of marbles on the floor in the middle of a fight, you are using the acrobatics skill.

But you wouldn't have to avoid them right? I might be more likely to kick a few at my enemy's.

Skill checks aren't saving throws.

pad300 wrote:
Whether or not you succeed in your check will not change the fact that you are considered flat footed.

You can't use the word success(or lack of success) for something that has neither.

And flat-footed and being denied your DEX are two different things.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I'm afraid hyperlinking just confuses me no end - I never understand how I ended up where I did or what the hell it has to do with what I wanted to know. Search functions are even worse.

Not that you're going to use the link but here's a funyy video just for you:

funny video

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think the word after applies to the clause: "you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks"

You're talking about the text in the section: "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack"

Which means you're deciding between an attack action or a full attack action.

If you are citing "your remaining attacks" as evidence that this rule is exclusively a Full Attack rule, here is evidence that it isn't:

"assuming you have not already taken a move action this round."

The "deciding" rule doesn't only apply in the context of the Full Attack action.

Your first attack is normally ambiguous. This isn't just my opinion it could actually be either an attack action or the first attack of a full attack action. The point of this rule is to protect that ambiguity.

There are certain things that make your first attack not ambiguous. Using a feat that specifies a certain type of action is one of those things.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
anti-manyshot crowd

I think the fact that you think of us as anti-manyshot is quite telling.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
What I am saying is that if you ask the question posed by the OP, and then look directly at the RULES AS THEY ARE WRITTEN, SPECIFICALLY for manyshot and full attacks, then the rules say you can use manyshot in your first attack as a free action and then choose to move after your first attack resolves.

Specifically, it a good word. The feat specifically says When making a full-attack action.

Generally, you get to Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack.

You don't get to do that in this case because you SPECIFICALLY chose to use a feat that REQUIRES a full attack.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Both interpretations are RAW. That's the problem. The rules are inconsistent.

No this isn't a situation where RAW can be read two ways. There is no inconsistency.

If there is any confusion it's in how Manyshot is worded, but the inclusion of the words "full-attack action" isn't an accident.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lakesidefantasy wrote:
The guys back home aren't going to like it, and I doubt we'll change the way we play the game, but the Skip Williams article Rules of the Game: Two-Handed Fighting (Part Two) is what most convinced me that I'm wrong.

How many pages back did I post this? I was certain it would convince people then. :(

Lakesidefantasy wrote:
"The DM might allow you to see the result before deciding to attack with the torch. If that is so and you decide to try an attack with the torch, your DM must recalculate the result of your sword attack, taking the primary weapon penalty into account. (I don't recommend this option, but it fits the letter of the rules.)"

Going back to recalculate isn't something you HAVE to do.

I wouldn't... I might not... It depends on the situation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lakesidefantasy wrote:

In the Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule it refers to the first attack of a full attack.

The Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack rule says that after your first attack, you can take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out.

Now that's an important part of the rule. If the first attack...

I didn't ask what it was referring to I asked where it was defined.

I also asked where Full Attack is defined. Where is Full Attack defined?

We must be able to pick either so both need to be defined BEFORE we can make such a choice.

Luckily, both of those terms ARE defined. I don't need to cut and past them again do I?

If Full Attack is actually Full Attack action(as defined under the heading "Full Attack") then it only logically follows that Attack is an attack action(as defined under "Attack"). If Full Attack isn't a Full Attack action then it is never defined.

(Both of which are Defined under "Action Types")

Your first attack is ambiguous. The point of the rule is to allow it to be that way.

If you use Manyshot it isn't ambiguous anymore.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

I'm fine with either side's interpretation, as long as it's consistent for other attacks (like rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, flurry).

If no move is allowed after the first attack of manyshot, no move after the first attack of the others (such as those listed above).

I think it does apply to those according to RAW. They don't according to RAI.

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
However, I haven't figured out how allowing a move after the first shot of manyshot is any more powerful than allowing a move after the first attack of a rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, of flurry (or such like). I don't see it as game breaking.

I think that if you want to rule that way you should change Manyshot to a standard action.

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
So, when you make your first attack, if you haven't moved or taken a 5'ft. step, you're starting a full-attack (a type of full-round action, so you get your iteratives and now have them to use). However, you aren't locked in to a full-attack. That's because you can stop attacking after the first attack and make a move, instead. Thus, making a standard action and a move.

This seems like a strange inversion of reasoning. I'm not saying it's wrong just weird.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You guys need to argue about this stuff at a time more convent to ME! I can't be posting long responses just before work in the morning.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To use Manyshot you have to use a full attack action.

A full attack action does NOT allow you to change your action after your first attack.

Because your first attack could be ether the first attack of a full attack action or a standard attack action the rules specifically allow you to decided after that ambiguous first attack.

If that first attack isn't ambiguous then you don't get to choose because you have already chosen.

You're DM might allow you to choose anyway, especially if you didn't get any benefit from your previous choice.

There's the old saying: Dance with the girl you brought

1 person marked this as a favorite.
setzer9999 wrote:
I am not advocating you can move with full-attack.... I'm advocating that you don't confirm that you ARE full-attacking until you make your second attack... something that is at odds with how Manyshot works.

If it's at odds with how Manyshot works it's also at odds with Whirlwind Attack works.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I can't recall anyone pointing this next bit out; an 'attack' consists of a single attack which is resolved with a single attack roll.


an attack
attack action
full attack action
extra attack
attack of opportunity

These are all different terms.

The word "attack" is actually three words: a noun, a verb and, an adjective. As a noun it can refer to one or more attacks without invoking the usually "S" used to make words plural.

For instance "I will attack his army" doesn't usually mean: "I will hit his army once."

When used as a verb "attack" means(in game terms): "to attempt to strike your opponent" Although it is often used more broadly throughout the rules. (You might roll an attack roll to throw a potion to a friend)

I think you're right about the capitalization. It doesn't mean much. but it seems clear that the "Attack" section under the "Standard Actions" section under the "Action Types" section, is probably referring to the noun phrase "the attack action," and not the noun "attack." That's the inference I make.

"the attack action." has one meaning and it's clearly defined in the Combat section. "Making an attack is a standard action."

You could rewrite the rule "Making an attempt to strike your opponent is a standard action."

Notice that this is different from:

"If you get more than one attempt to strike your opponent per round because your base attack bonus is high enough...you must use a full-round action to get your additional attempts to strike your opponent"

This is a "full-attack action". It's under the "Full-Round Actions" section under the "Action Types" section.

Attacks of opportunity are not actions. They are not under ether the "Full-Round Actions" or "Standard Actions" section nor are they under the "Action Types" section.

Attacks of opportunity could be reworded: "These free attempts to strike your opponent are called attacks of opportunity."

So the big difference between an attack action and a full-attack action is that if you get more than one attempt to strike your opponent per round you are using a full-attack action.

So, after your first attempt to strike your opponent, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attempts to strike your opponent.

I infer form this that after your first attempt to strike your opponent, you can decide to make your remaining attempts to strike your opponent instead of taking a move action.

Do you not concur?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MC Templar wrote:

What happens when the Full attack action rules tell me that after chinchilla I can decide to forgo the rest of my attacks an take a move?

Since, straw men aside, that is what the opposition is arguing that you aren't addressing in your post.

Deciding between a Chinchilla or a Full Attack:

This isn't the Full Attack rule. It applies just as much to Full Attack as it does to Chinchilla.

For instants: You could only be intending to make one attack and then move. However if the monster doesn't die, you can decide to take a Full Attack. Neat.

However if you use Vital Strike for that first attack you can't then decide to take a Full Attack.

Despite the rule allowing you to decide between a Full Attack and a Chinchilla. Vital Strike requires Chinchilla.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I'm done.


To break it down another way lets replace the word "Attack" with "Chinchilla."

Deciding between a Chinchilla or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.


Making an attack is a standard action

So before you've decided your attack is nether Chinchilla or a Full Attack. It's just an attack open to ether be the single attack Chinchilla or the first attack of a Full Attack.

Okay so, you start your turn and you want to use Manyshot. Manyshot requires a Full Attack. So you finish your first attack and then you you would normally get to decide between Chinchilla or a Full Attack.

Now you've already decided to use a Full Attack action because you can't use a feat unless you follow it's rules.

So you don't get the option to use Chinchilla because you have already decided to use a Full Attack.

Okay so, it's your next turn and you want to use Vital Strike. Vital Strike requires a Chinchilla. So you finish your first attack and then you you would normally get to decide between Chinchilla or a Full Attack.

Now you've already decided to use a chinchilla action because you can't use a feat unless you follow it's rules.

So you don't get the option to use Full Attack action because you have already decided to use a Chinchilla.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

When a feat says: "When you use the full-attack action" you must use an Full-Attack action.

If you aren't using a feat like this then you can deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack after your first attack.

The feat trumps the rule.

Feats do that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
Remember, though... The basic rule is that characters don't decide whether to full attack or not until after their first attack. That's just the way Pathfinder characters think, by default.

Basic is a good word for it.

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
"When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows" simply describes what happens when a character makes a full-attack. Nowhere does it say that he has to full-attack or that a full-attack is required.

That's kind of the thing with feats. You kinda have to do what they say, otherwise you can't use them. If you didn't know this earlier this is a great time to learn. It comes up a lot.

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
What it's saying is that you don't get to fire two arrows on each iterative attack. Just the first attack.

Really why didn't they word it:

"Once each round, your first attack with a bow fires two arrows."

It's shorter and easier to understand than:

"When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows."

Why mention full-attack action at all?

Whirlwind attack starts the start the same way:

"When you use the full-attack action"

Now if you only have one opponent within reach you only get one attack with Whirlwind.

After that attack do you think you can take a move action? No, you can't. Why? Whirlwind is a full round action.

Luckily you don't have to use Whirlwind you can opt to just use your normal iterative attacks. Why because learning to use Whirlwind doesn't make you unlearn what you already knew how to do.

If you were Forced to use Whirlwind it might actual be a curse rather then a blessing.

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
If you only make one attack, it's still your first attack.

If you take a move action and then an attack action that is still your first attack. Are you saying you can use Manyshot this way?

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
Nowhere does it state that you must full attack to fire two arrows with the first shot.

It states it right here: "When making a full-attack action with a bow"

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

If they wanted to be absolutely clear that the full attack was required, they could have written it this way:

"When making an attack with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. You must use the full attack action to use this feat

this does seem clear, but what does this say that the other didn't?

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:
continuing to fire as many additional arrows as you have iterative attacks, regardless of any circumstances."

I don't understand this. The feat doesn't work like this. You don't have to take all of your attacks.

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

In other words, a 20th level archer must fire 5 arrows (2 on the first shot and 3 more on the iteratives), regardless of whether or not there are any active opponents remaining. That's the only logical conclusion if a full attack is required by manyshot.

Pure absurdity.

You don't have to take all of your iterative attacks when taking a full-round action.

You don't have to fire two arrows with your first attack with a bow just because you have the Manyshot feat.

You don't have to only attack a creature once just because you have the Whirlwind feat.

I keep wanting to use the words "common knowledge" but apparently it's not common.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JCServant wrote:
Well, with the clarifications given in response to my post, I can see where there would be confusion. I guess it is a matter of which came first, the chick or the egg. You're supposed to see what happens in your first attack, and then make the decision to do a full attack or not...but if you have many shots, your first attack would have had two arrows, and going back in time to change something somehow seems bootleg.

If you haven't decided to use a Full Attack you can't use Manyshot.

If you haven't decided to use an Attack you can't use Vital Strike.

If you don't use Manyshot but you were planing on using a Full Attack you can change your mind after your first attack and take a move action

If you don't use Vital Strike but were planing on using an Attack action you can change your mind and take the rest of your attacks.

If you were planning on Two weapon fighting(a Full Attack) you can change your mind after your first attack and take a move action but you still take a -2 to your Attack.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
I'm dropping the TWF issue because we wont agree that penalty is a lock in just as much as the extra manyshot attack. That penalty can't exist if you not performing a full attack action just like the manyshot attack can't exist outside of a full attack action.
Skip Williams wrote:
You do not have to choose between the attack and full attack actions until after you have made your first attack on your turn (see page 143 in the Player's Handbook). However, if you intend to attack with two weapons during your action, you must take the correct penalty for each attack or give up your opportunity to use your second weapon (because the rules require you to take a penalty on attacks you make with both your primary and off hands).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
Or in person. But yes, there's pretty much no reason to continue airing dirty laundry in public.

Ya, you're right.

Me and Pharmakon were starting to talk this over facebook.

I posted here because I wanted to talk to people about this that weren't my players.

I posted it on the Paizo forums because my players never mentioned frequenting this site and I'm still pretty sure they don't(or didn't).

I also made it a point not to mention anyone's name in my first post.

I posted it on the Kingmaker forums so I could talk to other Kingmaker GMs about it. For the most part Kingmaker players shouldn't be here because of all of the spoilers that are thrown about.

I was really having a hard time getting to bed that night and I wanted to get some things off my chest to some fellow GM's(I knew I had a lot of Granite to cut in the morning.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PJ wrote:
Wow! It takes all kinds of players and gms to make this most awesome of a hobby fun. If it's not fun any more just go your separate ways. No need to get personal even though I understand why peoples feelings get hurt. Gming is very time consuming and...

Agreed. I think Charles and I will continue to be friends. Perhaps not gaming friends. I don't know.

As for hatch and I: we really never need to be around each other again so that's simple.

Nate's my best friend. He didn't want to play from the get go and so I'm indefinitely not blaming him.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
hatch wrote:
Starting off a campaign of veterans players and dm''s with an attitude of "my way or no way" is dumb. You betting bring your "A" game because basically you laid down the gauntlet and you were severely lacking. The fact that you got 3 or 4 sessions in was everyone being nice and hoping you would come around.

Everyone? I'm not dumb enough to know that you were the one with the biggest problems. Let's be honest. You didn't get things your way and you don't like that. That was obvious for the first session with you.

I know you typically like to mame and slaughter everything you come across. I've played with you before.

I never stopped you from playing your character. Never.

I never made anyone give up there character. Never.

I never wanted a single character to change. Ever.
(Nate decided to roll up two new characters. I never made him or pressured him. Ask him. Someone else might have.)
(Jason decided to roll up a new character because you befriend the Kobolds)

Honestly, a lot of them problem seems to be with some of the characters befriending Kobolds and other monster races.
Zato "ah, we should kill them!" right? Is this not what you said.

Forgive me for paying more attention to the players that didn't want to rape and pillage.

But I never stopped you from doing anything. I did ask "are you really going to do that?"

Because to be honest it seems a little childish to just stab everything.

Hey, if that's the game you like to play that's cool. You all could have gotten together and decided to be evil. I'm sorry if you couldn't convince the other players to do that with you.

Anyway it doesn't matter because I won't be playing with you anymore hatch.

Problem solved. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Pharmakon wrote:
After the three or four sessions we played, the game was becoming the same old thing over and over. "You go to the next hex. You encounter these creatures. They attack you." Because of the non-linear layout of the game, it was hard to feel that we were inside a story or a narrative. The game seemed like it was just a glorified board game to us.

I pretty much remember each and every session(spoilers)

First session was very linear. The only Problems we had during this session were because of Nate. There were a bunch of player interactions and storyline. I believe you went straight to the thorn river camp.

Nate decided to rolled up a new character.

The second session was crazy because we had like six players. Kingmaker is designed for four but I didn't fret because I knew that some players would be absent on occasion. Kingmaker is actually great for sessions where players have to be absent(You can pretend there off doing there royal tasks). I believe that you guys Killed the mites and befriended the kobolds In this session. You also met Davik Nettles. Crazy Player interactions(including a old fashion Shakespearean letter swap ) and plenty of storyline.

Nate decided to rolled up his next character.

Third session introduce another player. This session was pretty much just about completing Wanted Posters. I think you got the radishes and Tuskgutter and ran into the bear traps. You also found the The Elk Temple(I had Nates first character kill Jhod Kavken as he probably would have if they happened to meet on the road. I had you find Jhod Kavken's journal mentioning the temple)(I had plan for nates character in a later AP :D)

After this session I asked players to look at there traits and make sure they match there characters. I'm find with players liberally interpreting most flavor text. After all flavor text arn't rules but it states:

Yet a character trait isn't just another kind of power you can add on to your character—it's a way to quantify (and encourage) building a character background that fits into your campaign world.

In response I got back a message form Joey. In the message was similar to what you have quoted:

"You go to the next hex. You encounter these creatures. They attack you."

It also had a link to a forum post. I read that forum(I wish I had a link to it.) I read the forum and to my surprise the OP wasn't complaining about the same things Joey was complaining about. In fact I believe he said the first to AP were great. He seemed to mostly be complaining about the Cavalier.

I decided that I would do much less random encounters(which I had already informed the players was just to get them some more exp) but in the end I was pretty sure that this was Joey complaining because he wasn't getting his way. After all he had the Pioneer Trait from the Kingmaker Players guide and he was playing his character as a mysterious Genghis Khan type character from the far east?!? I'm not even sure this world has a far east?

Nate(who we all know didn't want to play from the very beginning) suggest to me that I spice things up a bit with an Ambush. So the forth session was mostly that ambush(featuring Nates second abandoned character) and fighting the staglord. Sadly Scotts character died from one well place staglord arrow. The fight was long and tough but you finished the first Kingmaker AP!!! Woot.

It took only four sessions.

Then we played in your campaign(I'm perfectly willing to play the way you and the guys are use to... I did.).

Your first sessions mostly consisted of a bunch of interactive cut scenes and two combats. Tons of storytelling, tons of roleplaying and tons of players finding way to insult/annoy others characters. To be honest this isn't my style of play(as I know mine might not be yours) it is clear that you have very little respect for the rules(that's dangerous for players who are depending on them.) Still I played. You're my friends and although this it wasn't my style of play I knew you guys like it and I went along.

We did the kingdom building stuff on an off session. Several of the player expressed uninterested and I didn't want to force it upon them so you me and Trina got together. I think you guys had a lot of fun because what was suppose to be only one year of kingdom building became two years and one month.

During my next session two players were missing(three technically.) You guys mostly went back and did some missions from the first AP. I was really hoping you would stumble upon the unicorn(It has ties to the overall story line.) You rescued some gnomes. You befriended a Boggard(It was a little difficult.) You got attack by random trolls. You ran away from them(thank goodness). You explored a lonely barrow and were driven away by bats. That session. The last lesson I suppose ended short. I think Trina had something to do or.

Then we had your next game. Since all of our character are famous or infamous of course every time we meet any group of people they have to get all star struck. I swear half of that session was "Ohh, you're that famous Harrower" "Oh, it's Golden throat the bard." "Arn't you Master urchin?"

And then there was the part where my father sent me a tweet(urgent come quick) and I was ambushed. I keep thinking: "Boy if I hadn't picked vanish as one of my spells I would be dead right now"

I think the rest of the missions was just players enchanting monsters.

What did we have like one encounter that whole session and we tried to retreat. Me and the bard got captured.

Once again I don't really like your style of play but hey: If people are willing to play it my way, why not play it there way. Right?

In the end I honestly don't think Kingmaker is what you disliked. I think it's my style of GMing and I don't believe that another AP will fix that.

If you think that another adventure will fix it well then you're in luck because you've just started the next Kingmaker AP! Rivers Run Red! Woot! I'm really excited to see how Duchess Eliyana deals with the loggers! Perhaps Daven will finally become a Swordlord? Will Zato Kill the Old Beldame? Will Duke Vesnic get it on with Lily Teskertin? Will Sneg eat Old Crackjaw?

I world may never know.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Short Story:
All of my players came to the consensus that they didn’t want to play kingmaker anymore.

Long Story:
I’ve been playing since 2nd edition. I’ve almost always been the GM. Usually campaigns that I start tend to end quickly(one to three sessions.)

I decided that I wanted to run a Campaign for real. If I was going to get serious about this I would have to not fall into any of the pitfalls that hurt other sessions.

Not knowing the Adventure well enough.
Not knowing the rules well enough.
Slowness in drawing out maps.
Backstabbing Players.
Must learn to say no to players.

Once I GMed players through 30 sessions. I made up the campaign world. I stayed closer to the rules. I used Transparency and permanent marker to draw my maps. I gave the players an in campaign world reason to cooperate. And I didn’t let players play fairy princesses or samurais that don’t know common. The only reason why this campaign ended was because I graduated and had to move.

I was very proud of that campaign but I still wasn’t happy because the only reason why I was sticking to the adventure was because I had become really good at coming up with stuff over the years(Also I’m an actor.)

So I purchased and read each of the Kingmaker APs. This was a challenge for me because amongs other learning disabilities I am also dyslexic. I really liked them. This AP fixed one of the biggest problems I’ve had with adventures, which was that they tended to lead the players along a fairly linear path.

One of the other aspects that I noticed slowed down or stopped game play was that players didn’t seem to keep track of who had which item or whether or not their character was encumbered or not.

I made a google doc containing each and every item in the first Kingmaker AP so that I could easily cut and past items into another Google Doc so players could keep track of items.

Transparencys and Perminate marker was a pain in the but so I instead inported all of the maps into a program called Maptools.
I found some players and we started playing. I had played with these players before. They had really liked how I use to play where I was pulling my hair out coming up with stuff.

One of them complained after the second session. I was running them through a number of random encounters and they didn’t roll anything what was much of a threat, but mostly he was complaining because I had asked them to pick traits that actually fit with the characters they were playing.

There was a little weaseling and whining the type of thing I experienced in the past when players were trying to stop playing.

One player suggested that he run a session on alternate weeks and I this sounded great to me because I do like to play aswell and It would give me more time to prepare for my sessions.

So we starting playing his Campaign and we finaly get to the end of the first Kingmaker AP and I get this email.

“A lot of us in your game have been thinking, and we've come to a consensus. We just don't like Kingmaker and we're not sure how much longer we can play it. But we do appreciate you wanting to run a game and we have come up with an alternative. We would like to invite you to run us in Second Darkness. I can give you all six books, plus the players guide. Would you be willing to take a look at these books? ***** and I are the last hold-outs in Kingmaker, but even the two of us are tiring of the modules. Let us know what you think.”

Honestly the thought of starting over (reading six more APs) and abandoning all of the work I have put into Kingmaker sickens me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here comes the 3 riddle, and I say it's alright.

You shouldn't need me to confirm the answer but if you want you can use spoiler tags. [ spoiler ] [ /spoiler ]

The riddle only has one answer but it might have a variety of names.

It takes half a day to reach fortress. I spend the entire trip just trying to avoid the very sight of you. And then when I finally get there I see you running off to the horizon. Now I can’t see what I’m doing so I light a torch and what do I see? A hoard of mud soaked vampires. At least you could have taken care of the mud! So I’m slaying vampires all night long, alone. Finally I made it to the Vampire lord and you come in through a broken window and smite him. You kill stealer! I spend the entire trip back just trying to avoid the very sight of you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A new one freshly inked. Might need some tweaking.Much easier then the last one.

Use spoiler tags if you think you have the answer. [ spoiler ]answer[ /spoiler ]

Do not give up and look at the spoilers!!!

If you figure it out without looking at spoilers you get to give hints(spoiler tags) but try to give it away.


the prettiest cat
in all of the town
she searched for a hat
that looked like her gown

and then she found one
right under a tree
away from the sun
amongst some debris

The top was dotted
the same as her gown
the bottom slotted
and fit like a crown

she danced all around
but then she laid down
right under the tree

and there the cat stayed
so it has been said
but where she once laid
there now is a bed

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Evil Lincoln wrote:

Cheating as a GM never solves player cheating.

Bullying as a GM won't solve player bullying.

I agree! Two Worgs don't make a Wight.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You probably won't be able to find the answer to this online because I wrote it. :)

When you figure it out try not to post the answer right away.

I'm not bound by way,
I am bound by stride.
So often I stay,
in castles and hide.

Enemies I kill
whoever comes by,
there's one I can't kill,
and I'll tell you why:

He is just like me
in all that we do,
but something, you see,
is oppose to.

When he is near me
I don't approach him,
nor he approach me
when I am near him.

So mutually feared
We each keep away
'till, all that is cleared
at the end of our play.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would quiet the talk about "scrolls" you might get sued.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vuvu wrote:

No thank you.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bubblegumnex wrote:
After reading over the rules I'm a little unclear on learning extracts. I know that the alchemist has a formulae list, but I'm getting the impression that he can turn other spells into extracts that are not on the list, since he can learn from a wizards spellbook. I'm a little lost on this.

An alchemist can only make extracts from formulae in his formulae book.

It would be a little overpowered if an alchemist could make infused extracts of any 6th level spell. and there are no clear rules on how some of these spells would react. It is a little unclear how some of his extract are suppose to work already.
see here

Pritty sure your not suppose to trick someone into drinking an extract... that you would have had to had infused.

bubblegumnex wrote:
Also, brew potion. I'm under the assumption that, as long as the alchemist knows it, he can brew a potion of any spell up level and including level 3.

It would be cool if it were that easy but unfortunately you need to check the spells description.

  • If the spell doesn't have TARGET in its description it can't be made into a potion.
  • If the range is personal it can't be made into a potion.
  • If it does not targets one or more creatures it can't be made into a potion.

Heres a list of alchemist spells that an alchemist can make without the assistance of others.

1st level:
  • Ant Haul
  • Crafter's Fortune
  • Cure Light Wounds
  • Endure Elements
  • Enlarge Person
  • Jump
  • Keen Senses
  • Negate Aroma
  • Reduce Person
  • Touch of the Sea
2nd level:
  • Aid
  • Barkskin
  • Bear's Endurance
  • Blur
  • Bull's Strength{*]Cat's Grace
  • Cure Moderate Wounds
  • Darkvision
  • Delay Poison
  • Eagle's Splendor
  • Fox's Cunning
  • Invisibility(although this does have a range of personal)
  • Levitate(same I think)
  • Owl's Wisdom
  • Protection from Arrows
  • Resist Energy
  • Restoration, Lesser
  • Spider Climb
  • Undetectable Alignment
2st level:
  • Cure Serious Wounds
  • Displacement
  • Draconic Reservoir
  • Elemental Aura
  • Fly
  • Gaseous Form
  • Haste
  • Heroism
  • Nondetection
  • Protection from Energy
  • Rage
  • Remove Blindness/Deafness
  • Remove Curse
  • Remove Disease
  • Tongues
  • Water Breathing

But you can do even better than that because you can infuse your extracts allowing you to make potion like things that you can hand out to the rest of your party.