Keven Simmons's page

Another question regarding party skill checks. In the description of the tasks it says:
"The PCs must succeed at two or more of the following tasks through the course of the night; if they don’t manage this, Dougle docks their compensation"

Then in the "Rewards" section at the end it says:
"If at least half of the PCs (rounded up) do not successfully perform the available tasks, reduce each PC’s gold"

Any advice on which success criteria is the right one? One PC succeeding on two tasks, or two PCs succeeding in a table of 5 or 6 would meet the first criteria, but not the second criteria.

I also assume only one check per PC per task is allowed (no retries or double-ups)?

Thanks for the feedback - i wasn't sure if the group chase should follow the standard rules for skill assist or not since many of the checks aren't actually skills (CMB, saving throws, ability checks, initiatives, etc.)

I ran PFS# 09-10 Signs In Senghor which had a similar chase and two out of the four players had companions which at the time I allowed to contribute to the checks. In hindsight, I like the approach of allowing the companion to assist the PC, but not directly contribute to the party skill results.

Also, Alexander Geuze mentioned not allowing cross-skill assists in the chase scene. I assume this means that if, for example, the highest resulting roll is on a Dextrity check, that only other rolls on a dexterity check can be counted as an assist ? Is this the intention of resolving the chase as written, or a personal decision by Alexander ?

Also curious how other GM's run this, or other similarly modified chase scenes. Do you typically have everyone roll at once, or by initiative order, thus allowing people to make a choice of skills based on the results already rolled ? Do you typically allow players to plan out out the skill selection everyone is choosing in advance?

All the possible adjustments to the DCs for the chase were starting to make my head swim - so I made this grid.
Gloaming Chase DC Grid

Ballistic101 wrote:

Question for the group: Should I tell my PC's what skill check they can attempt for the clue's, or do I let them guess?

I told my players what skills could be used. I said something along the lines like,"You can impress her by showing how well you can dance by making a perform dance check or sweet-talking her with a diplomacy check."

I try to give the players some clues regarding the NPCs background or profession that would help them choose an appropriate skill check. If there are no outwardly obvious clues, the PCs can ask them a few basic questions to get a feeling for where the NPC's interests lie before attempting a skill check.

In this particular scenario however, some of the listed skills don't seem to have any relevance to the NPC or their background. Why would Sleight of Hand be appropriate for the newlyweds? Why would Profession(Barrister) be appropriate for a sculptor? I may have to embellish the NPC backgrounds a bit to better fit the skills listed.

I'm not seeing the the "One File per Chapter" download option for the Return of the Runelords APs #133-#136. Strange thing is that I actually downloaded #133-#135 previously in One-File-Per-Chapter format and now that option is not on the list anymore.

I've looked through that section several times and I'm not finding mention of a cap on the number of debilitating wounds Gideon can suffer - where is that found?

Would the time spent "Locating the Aspis in Boali" - which is one hour per skill check attempt - be added to the time taken to reach and rescue Gideon Wren? The text only references the time spent crossing the Bay of Senghor.

Also, I can envision players that end up being fatigued by the journey across the bay deciding to rest before venturing into the city because there is no indication of a time element to their mission. If that happens, I assume the hours spent resting will also count against the timeline to rescue Gideon ?

Lovin' the Bundle! All the PFS season 6 & 7 scenario for 30 cents each? SOLD!

There were Paper Minis published - not sure if that is helpful for you.

http://paizo.com/companies/pathfinderPaperMinis

I'm prepping to run CoSS, and built a quick spreadsheet to pre-roll all the encounter checks and track destruction points for all the other factions going out for 120 'days'. What I discovered was that the none of the camps ever came even close to accumulating 20 destruction points (in absence of camp v. camp attacks). The supply checks very quickly eliminated the destruction points, especially with the +1d6 for beating the DC 15 with high rolls.

So that got me thinking that the whole use of destruction points was fairly useless and was never going to be a real threat to be managed. Which then got me thinking about whether to drop it entirely, or tweak it to be more relevant.

The tweak I am contemplating is applying the camp’s current destruction points as a penalty to all camp checks. This would represent the camp’s degraded ability to function and make destruction points more meaningful.

Thoughts? Anyone else done something different with regards to destruction points that made them more relevant ?

If these maps are still available, I would love to have copies. Email: keven [at] simmonsasylum [dot] com

I am contemplating running "Down The Blighted Path" as a Pathfinder Society game and was wondering if anyone who has experience running it could give me a guestimate of the total run time? Each of the three chapters in the module awards 3 XP, so it seems like each chapter individually would be considerably longer than a standard PFS scenario which awards 1 XP.

Great maps! They inspire me to create a couple missions for the PCs just so I can use them.

I've read a bunch of older posts on this topic but didn't really find any definitive answer (official or otherwise). Does anyone have any further light to shed on the topic, or is it still in the realm of GM prerogative?

blahpers wrote:

mdt wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Keven Simmons wrote:

In my game, it is all about targeting, not about whether or not the intent is to heal, or harm. The energy is always positive (or negative for evil bursters) - what matters is their choice of targets. They either target "living" (which includes the dhampir) - or they target "undead" which does not.

That's your game. He was asking about Pathfinder rules in which you DO have to declare your intentions on channeling.

You're both agreeing with each other, just saying different things.

What he's saying is, if you channel positive, you pick living (heal) or undead (harm), and Dhampir's and other NEA's are living. Or, if you're a negative channeler, you pick Living (Harm) or Undead (heal) and the dhampir is still living. You just end up healing instead of harming due to NEA.

Then I suggest the design team issue errata instead of a FAQ, because that is not what is printed at all. It also runs counter to the "simpler option is usually the right one" philosophy Pathfinder claims to adhere to. In the meantime, I will happily ignore the FAQ in favor of RAW.

*SIGH*

Please read the original quote. He said he's houseruling it in his own games to work like that, because it makes more sense that way. The offical FAQ is the opposite.

Correct. I was just offering it as a simplified approach that (I believe) met the intent of the NEA, but made it easier for the channelers to implement. They just choose their target type (living or undead) and the energy affects the targeted creatures according to their affinity.

In my game, it is all about targeting, not about whether or not the intent is to heal, or harm. The energy is always positive (or negative for evil bursters) - what matters is their choice of targets. They either target "living" (which includes the dhampir) - or they target "undead" which does not.

Any plans to develop another "Rival Guide" volume? I found this to be a great supplement and I would love to have another installment

I used this....

[img]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071102071260/forgottenrealms/images /9/94/Yuan-ti_Mageslayer.jpg[/img]

Is it possible to cancel this? I'd still like to keep the subscription, but have no need of a beginner box (or anyone to gift it to). I am also confused as to why it would be included in the subscription includes the core...

Anyway, thanks!
~S

Yeah, I am in the same position. I really don't think this item should have been included in the subscription. If there is any option to cancel this I would really like to opt out without canceling my whole subscription.

I'm looking at the Bard Detective class option from APG and am a little puzzled by the Arcane Insight feature as it relates to trapfinding. The ability says: "At 2nd level, a detective can find and disable magical traps, like a rogue’s trapfinding ability" - which is a nice feature except for the fact that disable device(DD) is not a class skill for bards. I assume then that a bard detective will need to have at least one rank in DD to use the feature and even then she would not get the class-skill bonus when making the attempt. Does that sound like the correct interpretation?

Indeed - those supplements were a great idea! I'm glad Paizo took it to the next level and made the whole thing available as PDF. Makes using a VTT soooo much easier.

I'm getting prepared to run STAP chapter 8 using the Fantasy Grounds. virtual tabletop software and was wondering if anyone had come across supplemental maps that would be useful for Scuttlecove encounters (in electronic format). I am scouring various sites for generic encounter maps for city streets/taverns/shops/etc. If anyone has some suggestions I'd love to hear them.

I want a poster of that cover!!!

I'm a bit disappointed as well. I was really excited to hear that the new devs for Fantasy Grounds were working towards a PF ruleset.

Perhaps the "Great Library" is in fact the "Founder’s Archive and Museum of Ages" mentioned under the "Arts & Entertainment" section. It is said there that Madam Irba Demerios practically rules the Founder’s Archives and holds the only key to the library’s famed Forbidden Collection.

I've heard from the new developer for the Fantasy Grounds virtual table top software that he is in discussions with Paizo to publish a PF ruleset. Just wanted to voice my support for making this happen. Two great tastes that would go great together.

Had fun watching, although a lot of the gags were a little bit too predictable. I think the 1/2 hour format is the way to go. The two back-to-back episodes got to be too much at one. It's tough to sustain a slapstick comedy for that long and keep your audience. 1/2 hour ought to be just about perfect.

Has anyone worked up a full set of stats for some of the main residents of Farshore, and would be willing to share said stats?
I's not that I'm lazy, I just don't have an overabundance of time.

Actually, I *am* lazy… but even so, I still don’t have an overabundance of time.

I'm sure it has been said before, but I just wanted to voice my appreciation to Paizo for the Dungeon supplement downloads with the maps, art and handouts. What a great addition to the magazine - they have really enhanced the game both for myself, and my players. Just renewed my subscription for another 12 months so keep up the good work!

The new dice from Q-Workshop look amazing. Any chance of getting some close-up shots of individual dice from the sets posted on the website (like the shots that the singles have). It's hard to make out the details of the various styles from the pictures currently available.