KingGramJohnson's page

Great! Thank you, everyone!

Hello all. I'm posting this here because it's more of a rules question than an AP question. This does contain spoilers for Book 6 of Mummy's Mask.

Is this an accurate understanding of the situation?

Thank you in advance!

I'll check those out.

KingGramJohnson wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

there's a number of movies and TV shows that dealt with this. interesting idea, but nothing earth shattering.

I never said it was an earth-shattering idea, just a fun situation for a one-shot. But maybe watching a few of those movies/TV shows will help with inspiration, as Andostre said.

Got any suggestions?

Can't think of any off the top of my head, I know one dealt with a Monkey's Paw. I think one had Mark Hamill in it, I seem to remember a couple of the Amazing Adventure's episodes dealing with it. I bet if you googled movies that dealt with wishes you might come up with a list.

I'll see if I can find some, as that's a good idea. Thanks.

KingGramJohnson wrote:

I know that Ioun is a goddess in the D&D setting, and the wonderous items are named after her.

Not quite.

Like so many other things in D&D, it's taken from the Dying Earth stories of Jack Vance, where they were valuable stones that mages collected, but what they actually did was left rather vague. Gygax, IIRC, gave them the function they have today.

Later D&D settings would occasionally invent their own backstory for them, such as the wizard Congenio Ioun inventing them in the Forgotten Realms. Ioun as a goddess is a 4e invention, I believe.

Ah! I stand corrected.

I know that Ioun is a goddess in the D&D setting, and the wonderous items are named after her. I'm guessing they just ported over the name when Pathfinder was created. I know that in PF2, they altered the name.

As for what they are exactly, I've always thought that they're made of gemstones or semi-precious stones that can hold magical energies and grant magical enhancements to whoever floats them above their head or has them set into a Wayfinder.

In my mind, a powerful mage (AKA one who has the correct spells and Craft Wonderous Item) crafts them by choosing the correct stone that holds the magic they wish to implant into it the best, then cuts the stone into the proper shape to allow that magic to flow into the person using the ioun stone. Some will crack during this process due to a mishap or due to damage to the stones after creation. Others will be made from flawed stones, thus causing the magical effects to be less potent than a perfect stone.

That's just how I put it all together in my own head/my gaming table.

there's a number of movies and TV shows that dealt with this. interesting idea, but nothing earth shattering.

I never said it was an earth-shattering idea, just a fun situation for a one-shot. But maybe watching a few of those movies/TV shows will help with inspiration, as Andostre said.

Got any suggestions?

One sticking point is that it sounds like each PC got their own wish in your scenario. It might be hard to think of related consequences for various disparate wishes. As someone said above, it's hard to gauge this idea without knowing what the wishes are, but perhaps consider just limiting it to the aftermath of one wish.

Or were you planning on deciding what the wish(es) were the PCs chose and then starting the adventure after the wishes were granted?

Hmmm...having it be one wish that the group decided on together might be better (or at least easier to plan).

I never considered pre-setting what the wish(es) were ahead of time, either. That's something to think about for sure. These are both great ideas to ponder over.

I think it's a great concept and premise. The main sticking points are not knowing what the wishes are yet, or how they're worded, or players trying to specifically word them at the start (knowing the premise, or just in general knowing how wishes work in Pathfinder) and trying to minimize their risk (and thus hamstring the story, at least for them).

It's like, you have to have some character in the start of a story or movie do something wrong or make a mistake sometimes to get the plot moving or get the protagonists put into their situation. As long as players know it's important to the story and don't just try and phrase every possible negative outcome from their wish (unless they legitimately are playing such a character), it can be a great foundation.

You may or may not make it clear that regardless of how they word it, something bad will occur, even if it's just them slowly dying or being fed on by the creature that granted their wish from some unstoppable supernatural or psychic link or other curse, and it will be worse than if they left fun and creative plot potential in their own wish from the start, it could be interesting.

Great points you bring up. I think I would present the premise of the one-shot to the group (my group is pretty good with wild ideas), and inform them that their character poorly worded a wish, or pissed off a djinn and it twisted their wish or something. I feel like it would need some legwork before the game starts.

I'll have to think on it for a bit and see what I can come up with.

Hello all! I just had an idea for a one-shot. I wanted to get the community's take on it before I started to put work into it for some future group. It's just a concept; I haven't fleshed anything out yet.

After the Wish:

General idea: The PCs have just gotten their wishes granted (what the wishes are will be worked out with the GM ahead of time), and now they must deal with the consequences of the wish, whether it was poorly worded, twisted by the granter, or somehow went wrong.

The concept would be to have a group of adventures who had made wishes, come to regret them, and must either find a way to reverse them or learn to live with them.

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks!

PF2e Remaster?

I wish Paizo would release a compilation book of some kind like a Bestiary 7, Ultimate Equipment 2, or Class Compilation book(every class including variants plus maybe all the bloodlines, rogue talents, oracle mysteries, ki powers, etc.) but I know that will never happen.

I've wanted an Ultimate Equipment 2 for so long!

Dot.

For me, it's not.

I understand the need for the Remaster after everything that happened with the OGL and the creation of the ORC. However, I already have a lot of money invested in Pathfinder (1e and 2e) and can't justify paying $120 for the new cores (or even $40 for the PDFs). I play 1e more than 2e anyway; I enjoy it more and I already own most of the books for it.

When I do play 2e, I'll probably stick to the books I already own, and if I want to play the Remastered, version I'll likely use AoN to look up the rules.

It's mostly a cost-for-content issue for me. Some of the new stuff looks cool, but I can't shell out that much money for it, as much as I'd love to support Paizo.

The guidance is pretty clear at CR-4. But if for some reason an encounter is under-rated or they're coming into it with reduced strength, and obviously having trouble, the GM is supposed to realize that the circumstances have made it a Significant Encounter. That's why the GM flexibility was designed in. The reason it's only for Significant Encounters is they don't want the character flaunting that power all the time when it's just not adding anything interesting to the game. If you do it all the time, it's not perceived as special.

There are other ways to limit it. For example they could have made it you can do it once or twice per day. Then you have to be judicious about using it when you don't need it because then you might not have it when you get to the boss fight, and you're going to have a hard time in the boss fight without all your powers active.

As others have said, no rule is going to make up for a bad GM. Or any other bad player for that matter.

GMs either know that, or they learn it.

I see what you're saying, but I'm afraid I have to disagree that the way to rebalance a fight is to take away the power and ability of the PCs. I've been on the receiving end of that before (not in Starfinder), and it's frustrating and annoying. And to do it mid-fight is even worse.

No matter how you want to look at it or spin it, the Starfinder Core Rulebook clearly states that a GM can remove the powers of certain classes if they ever feel like the fight is no longer significant mid-battle. It's not like all classes have a feature like this. It would still be wrong, but at least it would apply to all characters. It's only a few classes that have this caveat. To me, that is not good.

If they wanted the powers only to be used X times per day, they should have just written the classes like that, not say some classes can use these abilities but only so long as the GM allows you to in battle. That might encourage GMs to do this if a fight isn't going how they like--you want the battle to be a little more dangerous, but the PCs are mowing through them; take their power away!

Yes, a good GM will not do that; I agree. However, as I said, a bad GM will see this as permission, and inexperienced GMs will not know any better, which will sully the game for some players. That is why this rule (or, at the very least, how it's written) is terrible.

Metaphysician wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Michael Gentry wrote:

It seems very weird to recalculate the CR of a fight every time a combatant drops. That leads to all sorts of absurd outcomes, of which the Solarian's powers shutting down is not even the dumbest. Furthermore, as BNW pointed out, if you're going to recalculate CR every time an enemy drops, then you also should be recalculating APL every time a PC drops.

As long as the PCs are still rolling dice and spending resources and not taking 10-minute rests, then a CR 5 encounter remains a CR 5 encounter until the last space goblin drops.

I agree. But if you have a GM dead set on reading it another way there's nothing to really lean on that says that they're out right wrong.

There absolutely is something to lean on, its just not in the rules book. Its "Look, GM, you are making an idiotic ruling that is harming the fun of the game. Either stop a moment and reconsider whether this is a good idea, or I am leaving." Because despite pretensions otherwise, the GM is not God. Their authority extends only as far as the players allow it to extend.

As I've said many a time: a rules solution cannot fix a player problem. And the GM is absolutely a fellow player.

I agree with you, but it still doesn't prove one person right or wrong.

A GM who is interpreting otherwise is likely to see such a statement as a player attempting to coerce the GM to have their way, rather than what the GM views as "correct".

Ultimately this will boil down to how much are players willing to accept "bad" rulings regardless of whether or not the rules support it.

Just because the rules are written a certain way doesn't mean a group should follow them if they find it makes them have a worse time.

Hopefully people are more reasonable, and generally they are. But I wouldn't be surprised to find there's some GM out there that does the kind of bad things we've all said in this thread shouldn't be done.

That's exactly my concern with it. Experienced players know enough to look at that rule and ignore it, but new GMs might not, and it might ruin the game for players.

I did what Leedwashere details in THIS POST. The group was able to set up sufficent defenses after a few rounds so that by the time any enemies got to them they were able to easily handle them. I ended up running maybe 10 rounds (probably less) of combat and then started to narratively describe what was happening.

Hmmm...I will take a look at this. Thank you.

Hello!

My group is about to start Book 5, "The Slave Trenches of Hakotep."

I want the final battle at the end of the book, where they have to fend off the ossumentals while the Pharoah's Key is charging up and preparing to tear down Hakotep's flying tomb, to be different, epic, and rigorous. However, it's a five-minute stretch of time, but I don't want to run a 50 round combat.

For context, I have a 6 player party made up of a Paladin/Monk, a Paladin, a Unicorn Bloodline Sorcerer, a Warpriest, and a Fighter/Wizard (who specializes in riding his enemies like a cowboy on a bull). They're pretty great at tearing through enemies.

I'm not necessarily asking how to make the fight harder (the influx of unending ossumentals should be challenging enough), but I want to make it more dynamic than a 50 round fight.

Are there any suggestions on how to make this an epic and memorable conclusion to this book? Something more than just a fight with a timer?

Thanks ahead of time!

1st: Teleport

Yet strangely, in first place is a spell I rarely see banned. I don't ban it. Yet people are certainly aware of its power to disrupt campaigns. Launch a surprise attack on the enemy leader.

Ah yes, the potential of the "Scry n' Fry" tactic. See, at my table, this does not get abused. But that's because my players know the moment they start doing that to their enemies, their enemies start doing it to them, and there will be no mercy. That is what prevents them from using it. LOL

I like your list.

What's there to house rule out? Just run it correctly.

You keep saying this.

See my above post. When run correctly, according to RAW, a Solarian's core class features are supposed to shut down once the threat of the battle diminishes mid-battle. Once a fight reaches a level where it's a cakewalk, my character's ability to use Stellar Revelations that require photon or graviton attunement (like Supernova) stops because Stellar Mode shuts down automatically.

My issue is no longer with the bag of rats (APL-4) issue; I've accepted and moved on. My gripe is that Soloarian has written into the class that Stellar Mode shuts down if a fight reaches a certain threshold.

My group and I don't like this. It's not enjoyable to play that way. This is what we are house-ruling out. It's not a matter of running it incorrectly because, per RAW, it happens even if the fight starts with significant enemies and becomes less dangerous as enemies drop.

But, just in case it comes up, this piece:

KingGramJohnson wrote:

Not having Stellar Mode outside of combat is fine; that makes sense. But, unless I misunderstand this, even if you're in a significant fight, once it looks like you're going to win and it's not dangerous anymore, a Solarian's main ability shuts off.

is wrong. The GM doesn't get to flip a switch at some arbitrary point when they think the fight is mostly over and say "your cool powers turn off.

Um, it literally says exactly that. It might not be what they mean by it, but that's exactly what it says.

When you’re not in combat, you can’t enter a stellar mode. This ability manifests only in high-stakes situations, when your training takes over and connects your mind to the universe. There needs to be some risk to you for your stellar mode to activate, so you must be facing a significant enemy (see page 242). If there’s any doubt about whether you’re in combat or able to access your stellar mode, the GM decides. This also means that your stellar mode might end before what was previously a dangerous battle is over, once all that remains are dregs that don’t pose a real threat to you.

(Emphasis mine.)

It literally says that Stellar Mode will end if the fight becomes too easy mid-battle. This is why I think it's worded poorly because that seems pretty clear to me what they mean: if you are in a "significant" battle, and you end most of the threat before the battle is over, Stellar Mode ends before the battle does. This is, in my opinion, a poorly designed or written rule.

Even then, though, honestly - what kind of GM would make that call? Let the Solarian do their supernova on a bunch of stormtroopers, why not. Slavish devotion to when exactly you are/aren't in a Significant Challenge(TM) really feels like a losing proposition for everyone, players and GM alike.

This is the point I'm trying to make. It's more fun to let players use their class abilities in a fight, but--at least with Solarian--it clearly states that Stellar Mode will just turn off if the fight becomes less dangerous, mid-battle, regardless of the starting CR.

This is why we're house ruling it out. It is not fun.

KingGramJohnson wrote:

However, this does not change the fact that there is a mechanic in Starfinder that allows a GM to turn off the core abilities of some class in an insignificant fight, as per RAW. This is something I think is asinine.

I do not believe this rule is conducive to a good RPG table. And thus, we will be house-ruled out for our group. If you like it, that's cool; you may use it. The bag of space rats is not an issue for me and my group; thus, this rule is unnecessary at our table.

So, it does look like I glossed over the rules says stellar mode doesn't activate, which does mean your denied some powers.

However, I would urge caution is calling the general stupid or asinine. The general rule makes sense and is good.

The rules applying it to stellar modes was probably a bad decision. And it would be reasonable to house rule it, so that it was generally usable. And in fact, there are some revelations that are only useful and make sense to use outside of combat. They're not impossible to use in combat, but you also shouldn't (IMO) be restricted to using them in combat only.

But again, I think you're having an emotional reaction with being frustrated because of a bad experience caused by improper application of the rule. You should have been able to use your stellar mote to turn into your weapon and armor, and while you may not have had the damage bonus or access to your revelations you probably would have had a different experience with the combat.

Don't get rid of the general rule, but I will admit it being attached to stellar mode doesn't make sense.

Honestly, I've played a Solarion before and forgot that line was even in there. Ultimately the rule is about stopping exploitative play. And I agree that you shouldn't be able to build up attunement outside of combat (which is why it says you can't use it outside of combat (or more specifically combat with significant enemies) but their explanation of why you can't use it at all is kind of BS. That I will agree...

This is absolutely the intention of the rule, but it's not written as well and cohesively into the system as we wish. Because while you and I understand the intention, it's not immediate obvious and Stellar Modes does say you can't use it against non-significant enemies. But the intention is to prevent you from building up attunement prior to a fight.

Fair enough about the general.

After looking things over, I think what I most have an issue with is the way the rule is worded, especially with Solarian. I get what they're trying to do, but it could have been worded better.

As a follow-up, we played tonight, and my whole group agreed that we don't have a "bag of rats" issue, and thus APL-4 abuse will not be a problem for us. So we have house-ruled it out. No harm, no foul.

Quote:

We're new to the game, so we're all learning it as we go, and yes, the fight we were in wasn't APL-4, so it was the wrong situation.

Quote:

but I can guarantee that this will be house-ruled out at our table.

Quote:

Most of you see it as a way to avoid abuse, whereas I see it as a form of abuse against players. It can go both ways if handled wrong.

There’s nothing to house rule. Your GM ran it wrong aka your GM did the very thing you’re worried about via house rulings.

I do admit that he did it wrong. You're telling me the same thing again. I'm grateful to the community for pointing out where I misunderstood the rule.

However, this does not change the fact that there is a mechanic in Starfinder that allows a GM to turn off the core abilities of some class in an insignificant fight, as per RAW. This is something I think is asinine.

I do not believe this rule is conducive to a good RPG table. And thus, we will be house-ruled out for our group. If you like it, that's cool; you may use it. The bag of space rats is not an issue for me and my group; thus, this rule is unnecessary at our table.

I can't think of any specific Solarion abilities that would be turned off or not function due to the significant enemy rules, But I could forget something.

A Solarian's Stellar Mode.

When you’re not in combat, you can’t enter a stellar mode. This ability manifests only in high-stakes situations, when your training takes over and connects your mind to the universe. There needs to be some risk to you for your stellar mode to activate, so you must be facing a significant enemy (see page 242). If there’s any doubt about whether you’re in combat or able to access your stellar mode, the GM decides. This also means that your stellar mode might end before what was previously a dangerous battle is over, once all that remains are dregs that don’t pose a real threat to you.

Not having Stellar Mode outside of combat is fine; that makes sense. But, unless I misunderstand this, even if you're in a significant fight, once it looks like you're going to win and it's not dangerous anymore, a Solarian's main ability shuts off.

I have a problem with this. This means my powers can stop working while the fight is still going. My group and I do not like this rule.

As I said before, I appreciate you all explaining how the "Significany Enemy" rule functions. Now that I understand it, I know why my group doesn't need it. I don't think this rule adds to the fun but detracts from it. I have no problem with people playing with it, but for us, we will kindly ignore it.

All that being said, we have been enjoying Starfinder as a whole. We've had a good time playing so far. We played Traveller before this and weren't a fan (except for character creation, which was a blast!). Starfinder is allowing us to scratch the sci-fi itch! :-D

Thank you for the help!

My GM is pretty good. We're new to the game, so we're all learning it as we go, and yes, the fight we were in wasn't APL-4, so it was the wrong situation. I see that now. I spoke to my GM, and we will discuss it as a group at our next session, but I can guarantee that this will be house-ruled out at our table. I just don't think it's necessary, and I find the wording on the rule odd.

I get what everyone is saying, and I can see everyone's point of view, which makes sense to a degree. It exists to avoid the "bag of rats" situation. In my opinion, this lies in the GM's ability to run the table as opposed to a mechanic in the game that at APL-4 powers don't work or, at the GM's discretion, any fight they deem insignificant.

However, I do not think it's a good mechanic. Most of you see it as a way to avoid abuse, whereas I see it as a form of abuse against players. It can go both ways if handled wrong.

I'm not here to argue but to understand the rule and why it's there, and I think I got that. So I thank you all! I like how helpful and responsive the Pathfinder/Starfinder community is.

Quote:

By its very nature, this rule is there to allow any GM who doesn't like it when players have an effective build to just shut off their powers whenever they want.

It is not.

The GM Discretion part is to encourage the GM leave those abilities on even if the enemy is really weak.

A GM reading that and deciding to arbitrarily take away PC’s abilities to make the fights super hard is just being a jerk.

Significant Enemies wrote:

The GM can and should declare that an ineffectual foe is not enough of a threat to count as an enemy for effects that grant you a benefit when you do something to an enemy or have an enemy do something to you. For example, the commander ability of the mercenary theme requires you to defeat three distinct groups of significant enemies in a day to recover 1 Resolve Point; a mercenary shouldn’t gain this benefit if all they did was step on three different bugs that had no chance of hurting them. In general, a creature with a CR less than or equal to your character level – 4 is not a significant enemy.

Though it goes both ways with the way it's worded, and a GM can use that to ignore it if they want, I still see it as permission to remove players' core abilities. "At GM's discretion" can (and likely will) be abused by a terrible GM. They can point to that rule and say they can turn off your powers because the fight isn't worth you using them.

For example, the fight we were in was not APL-4. If we had been at full power, it would have been a quick fight but not a stomp-fest. But because several players were disabled, it lasted longer, becoming harder than a fight like that needed to be.

Besides, as a player and as a GM, I would feel uncomfortable turning off a player's abilities (without a save, no less) just because I'm throwing an easy fight their way. Sometimes it's good to let the players feel powerful.

I've had an experience with a bad GM turning off my abilities for no reason. In PF1, I was playing a Paladin in a campaign, and she didn't like that I was killing all the evil things so fast, so instead of tweaking fights to make them more challenging or throwing a few neutral creaturs my way, she found a BS reason to turn off my powers for two levels. I rolled with it for the sake of peace at the table.

That's what this feels like to me, a mechanic to allow GMs to poorly design fights for players and have an excuse to make it harder rather than work at making it challenging.

In my opinion, this is a terrible mechanic in an RPG.

I'm new to Starfinder, mr group has been trying it out, and so far, we've been enjoying it. However, there's one rule that we discovered while playing. And that's having class features not function when you're not fighting a "significant enemy" or "an enemy that has a CR of APL-4, but for the most part, it's GM discretion."

If I understand this correctly, the GM can decide that your class features don't work for this fight. I'm playing a Solarian, and my Stellar Mode is the main feature of my class. This being our first time experiencing this kind of a fight, I wasn't allowed to enter any of my modes, which made my core abilities not function, and my mote less useful in the fight. I became pointless in the fight, as did another PC who also had a build hampered by this rule.

In one swift moment, the game became a joke and not fun. I shot, I missed. I moved, I shot, I missed. I got hit. I took damage. I nearly dropped. Granted, we won the fight, but ONLY because of the characters who were NOT hampered by this rule. It made me, as a player, feel useless.

I've been playing RPGs for a long time, and I've never seen a written rule where the GM can decide if you get to use your class features today or not. By its very nature, this rule is there to allow any GM who doesn't like it when players have an effective build to just shut off their powers whenever they want. If it were simply APL-4, okay, there's a hard and fast rule for it--though it's still dumb because I don't believe in robbing a PC of their class features without a reasonable cause (AKA something is affecting them, which usually has a saving throw connected to it). But because it also includes "GM discretion," any GM can declare it an insignificant enemy at the start of any fight and turn off certain PC class features.

Our GM wasn't being a jerk; we discovered the rule and used it for that fight. But even the GM thought it was weird. I will talk to him and request we ignore that rule, as it's not fun for the people who are hampered. I'm sure he'll consider it.

Does anyone have positive things to say about this rule, or do a lot of people house rule it out? Because from where I'm sitting, it can be abused by a bad GM and/or make PCs feel irrelevant.

As long as no Paizo exec ever tells me it's racist to call myself half-something like that Jeremy guy at WotC did, and as long as they don't 'erase' being mixed meaning anything like the 5E revision is doing (where you only take abilities from one side and just wrap it in a paint job).

Then I can handle it.

Making 'mixed heritages' that actually means something - letting me take from both of my ancestries...

As a 'real life' mixed race person that is highly appreciated.

I've grown up with a cultural mix from 4 continents, and it means something. And having that concept represented in gaming has always been of great value to me.

As long as I can ALSO proudly call my characters half-Orc and half-Elf and have that be canon, then I will remain happy with the changes that EXPAND mixed heritage rather than contract it like some other tRPG is doing.

They cover it here:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1829865557?t=02h28m11s

This is exactly how I feel about it. Paizo is making an effort to allow blended groups of people to work mechanically, and WotC is erasing them from the game. Major props to Paizo!

Will half halflings be quarterlings?

I still firmly believe that Humans are Dire Halflings.

We play in person and still play PF1. My players just finished Book 4 of Mummy's Mask. So far, so good. A lot of character deaths in the dungeon though.

Oh, I think you'll know a vorpal weapon when you see it because adventurers like to brag about their stuff.

"You see this sword? Vorpal. Want me to prove it?"

I don't know you or your friend, but I think you're doing cultists wrong.

** spoiler omitted **

This is very well put. If more RPG cults acted more like actual cults, we would have more interesting adventures and stories. I may think about how I operate the cult the next time I want to use one in an adventure I'm running. You've given me a lot to think about. Thank you.

No, what you do, is take it literally. Have the party get to the BBEG and find that he's just some dude with a wooden picket sign that says, "I'm evil!" But the twist is that the sign is intelligent, evil, and took over this guy's will. It's the sign that says "I'm evil" that's been controlling the guy the whole time.

Everyone wins. The GM gets to have an evil villain that literally says they're evil. The players get a twist they don't see coming. The critic gets an unconventional villain with a surprising amount of nuance for such a silly concept.

Obviously, something like this wouldn't work in a serious-toned game. But the concept is sound if you were to use the idea of this twist with some more serious themes. The villain IS more sympathetic; they're under the control of another. This forces the party to make some heavy choices concerning what to do about the one who's been pulling all the strings but turns out to be a puppet themselves.

I would love to learn how to really present a dragon like I imagine they are supposed to be...

Even within the printed Paizo material, I wish I knew how to utilize everything they already have. And I have heard of people that can best party after party using the same old dragon, just using it well.

Dragons do not come of age by being foolish. It is hard to show a thousand years of cunning and guile in an encounter with the party, since wise dragon would likely avoid such an encounter at all costs. Even a hoard can be replaced, so long as the dragon is alive to replace it.

A dragon with specific enough interest in the party to take on a humanoid form to befriend them seems insane, to me. They could either tell a minion they already have to act as an ambassador and go liason with the party, or pay/hire the exact right "person" for the job. Taking on such a risk oneself is a fool's errand. A dragon old enough to perform such tricks theirself would be experienced enough to know that the information one could possibly gain is information you already know... avoid these murderhobos of you want to live.

I would agree with you to a point. True Dragons are hyper-intelligent, highly magical beings. They are wise, clever, and devious (regardless of color and type). I agree that adult and higher-aged dragons would be too smart to get themselves into trouble. Maybe some younger ones would be more reckless as they don't have the experience.

However, one of the reasons why I love running dragon encounters is because I believe dragons have ranges of personalities and desires.

For example, I had a party run into a Cloud Dragon who had a hoard of spoons. Just spoons. All nd of spoons. Fancy spoons, princess spoons, worthless spoons, common everyday spoons. She just loved spoons. She wouldn't let the party move through her domine unless they gave her a spoon. Thankfully, they happened to have one (I think it was made of clay).

As for dragons never putting themselves into a position to interact directly with a party, I must respectfully disagree. I think some might, but not all. I think many dragons, though wise and intelligent, are also arrogant. And let's be honest, who's going to mess with an ancient dragon? Not many people; adventures are crazy, after all. I can easily see a dragon being like, "I'm so powerful, no one would dare piss me off or try to harm me. No one is that suicidal. What do I have to fear from this party and their petty magic and puny weapons?"

Such was the case of an encounter with an ancient silver dragon in a campaign I ran. He was LG and considered the area they were in his domain to protect. He was also very nature-aligned. He didn't want the animals that lived in his territory to be harmed. He considered himself the law of the land, and he (secretly) ruled and protected it. The party ended up finding a roc nest, climbing inside, killing the roc, and taking the egg. The dragon discovered this and visited the party, appearing like an old wizard. He approached them at their campfire. They instantly did not trust him and questioned him, and all they could learn was that he was very magical (they failed their checks to see that he was polymorphed). He asked if he could camp with them and use their fire. They didn’t trust him, but he showed them that he had no weapons and meant no harm. They agreed though they were cautious. He asked them of their adventures, and they brought up the Roc. The following day. He told them that he protected this land and found the dead roc and wanted to know what happened. He was giving them the benefit of the doubt; he is good after all. After the party told him they needed the egg and the roc attacked them. The dragon-in-human-form questioned them and learned that they provoked the roc when they tried to take the egg and defended itself and its young.

He told them that they must make reparations for their crimes. They were to hatch the egg and find someone to care for the baby roc until it could be released into the wild and find someone who knew about rocs to do this. The party was like, “Who are you to order us?” He told them he ruled this land and the creatures were under his protection, and he would allow them to make it right. They threatened him. He told them that he would raze their city to the ground if they did not do as they were told within X amount of time. Then he simply walked away. The Ranger drew his bow and attacked.

This Ranger was optimized up the wazoo but still missed the AC, but I fluffed it that he turned and caught the arrow (despite not having that feat, it was more fluff to show them how powerful he was). He broke the arrow in half and stated their deadline again. Then they were freaked out because they figured his shot should have hit a wizard. The Ranger attacked again. This time he actually hit. After taking damage, the dragon turned and said something along the lines of, “We’ll do this the hard way then,” and transformed, and instantly the party realized their mistake, and by then, it was too late. Now, the ancient silver dragon could have wiped the floor with them, but instead, he killed only the Ranger (I think he flew him up 200 feet and dropped him) and told them that they had a deadline to do as he said, then flew away.

Then they tried to find ways to kill the dragon but eventually decided just to comply; it would be cheaper and better than the alternative.

It was a fun encounter. They later made amends with the dragon, and though never fully friends, they became allies.

So, in conclusion, I think it depends on the dragon and the situation on whether or not they would disguise themselves and walk among the adventurers. But yeah, I like running dragon encounters.

These are some pretty awesome stories.

I love having dragons in human form traveling with the party for a bit, learning what they can about them. It's a lot of fun.

One of my favorite types of encounters is dragons, both as a GM and a player. I just love how ruthless and clever, or even kind and pragmatic dragons can be (depending on the type and personality). So, I'm curious, what have been your favorite encounters involving dragons? And I mean as a player or a GM, whether it was a fight or resolved diplomatically.

If it's from a published campaign, please use the spoiler format, so nothing gets spoiled.

I can recall running a game long ago where I felt bad about the amount of treasure (or lack thereof) that I had given out in an earlier session. So I placed a large gem (a ruby) in the hall for the players to find. Simple enough, they'd get instant cash to cover what I had shorted them before. For in game rational, I reasoned that another adventuring party (they knew there were others exploring the same ruins they were) had dropped it as they left - and had not noticed it fall out of their bag.

So, as the heroes approached a intersection they caught sight of a "red twinkle" on the floor ahead. Out came the detect spells, the rogue checking for traps, Paladin doing Detect Evil, the works. Ultimately, even discovering that it was a valuable gem, they elected to bypass that section of tunnel to avoid approaching it. They could come up with NO REASON FOR IT TO BE THERE. It HAD to be a trap, and one they couldn't figure out, so it was best to bust a hole in a couple stone walls to bypass the intersection entirely... leaving that ruby on the ground.

Months later, they would still point out how they could sometimes "foil my evil plans" by "avoiding the bait"...

Haha! I've had players bypass treasure because they didn't trust it either! Classic!

@Derklord - ABP would never fly with me and the people I game with. It takes the fun out of some elements of the game. We enjoy seeing if we have enough money to buy the things we need (the Big 6) and the other things we may want and choosing between them. ABP just gives it to you. You need to suspend your disbelief, as you say, but for me, it's suspending it a little too far. And the magic is not enchanted on the weapon, it's attuned to it and can be moved around at the PC's leisure.

For example, let's say you're in a fight, and your weapon was taken from you, and the villain escapes with it. In a typical game, this hurts; you put a lot of money you worked hard for into that weapon. But in an ABP game, it's no big deal; just switch the attunement to your backup weapon tomorrow. Or if your armor gets sundered or your cloak is stolen. No actual harm or foul.

If it works for your group, that's fine, but it's not a great system for all people and play styles, and I think that's what @Kasoh is talking about. It's not a bad system; it's just not for everyone.

And yes, it does take some work, despite what you claim, as you have to recalculate prices of weapons with non-enhancement magic on them (Such as Bane, Holy, etc.). It can be a hassle to some GMs who don't want to deal with that level of minutia.

As for @Calybos1's original question, what I find works the easiest is taking some of the treasure they would get from an encounter they bypassed and placing it elsewhere in the adventure as loot in chests or hidden compartments.

I don't recommend transferring unique items if they bypass an encounter.

E.g., The party talks their way out of an encounter that they would have dropped a cool dagger made of cold iron. That happens to be the only cold iron drop in the adventure game, and cold iron is needed to kill a nasty monster later that will not die unless dealt a killing blow from a cold iron weapon (I'm looking at you, RotR). (This wasn't my exact experience with this AP, but it's similar enough to use it as an example here.)

Well, in the context of the story, they either missed their opportunity to get that item, OR they need to rethink how to get that item. If it's a MUST HAVE campaign item required to complete the mission, and the party bypasses it, the GM will need to reroute them back to it. I've had to do this before because a party ignored information they received, used social skills to bypass an encounter, and missed picking up an essential item they needed. They realized they messed up and had to double back and steal it, which they did successfully.

The point I'm making, though, is that with only a little effort on your part, you can supply them with items they would get as murderhobo loot simply by including it elsewhere. And if that doesn't work, as others have pointed out, have the loot be rewards for their good deeds from people who what to help and contribute to the cause or whatnot.

I would want an updated Ultimate Equipment, or Ultimate Equipment 2.

I'm GMing a game of Mummy's Mask, and it's a party of alchemists. They are all brothers named Tin, Rubidium, Cesium, Titanium, Nitrate, and Anaximander. The alchemists and element jokes go on for miles at our table.

It’s out for a few days: https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6shr4?Class-Is-in-Session-Strength -of-Thousands#discuss

Awesome! Thank you!

The maps in the AP are beautiful! I love how colorful they are!

Hey! Does anyone know when the Strength of Thousands Player's Guide will be available?

Thanks!

I'm all about traits. They're a nice small (but not insignificant) boosts to your character, which also helps explain a few things about them. I also like drawbacks because I think it adds some complexity to your character and provides a mechanical penalty to something from your backstory.

I have a character right now. He's a 17-year-old human spellscar oracle who has poor impulse control, and magic just goes haywire around him sometimes. He's for a custom campaign, and our GM told us to pick two traits. I chose Child of the Streets as he's almost always pickpocketing someone due to him and his brother surviving alone on the streets for the last seven years of his life. I also have Eye for the Wondrous. We fluff it that he just knows wonderous items when he sees them and knows what they are.

Both of these small bonuses have helped to drive the character many times.

I feel like if you have them, use them. I played a different game with a different player, and he had a drawback, which gave him a fear of open flames and a mechanical penalty around fire. He included the mechanical penalty when it applied. But he NEVER roleplayed the fear of fire. If he didn't tell us he had that drawback, I would have never known because he never played his character with that flaw. At least show concern when there's fire all around, and you need to move through it or straight up refuse to go near the fire. It adds some flair to your character.

However, I also agree that you shouldn't be limited to one trait for each type; sometimes, you want two combat traits or two faith traits.

I'm the GM, and we're about to finish Book 2, and I'm excited for Shifting Sands.

I have a party of all alchemists (various archetypes to hit all the party niches). They're all playing brothers of the same family. This has posed some fun and interesting challenges. Many fights have been a breeze (because of bombs), and other fights have been challenges (also because of bombs). It's crazy, but we're all having fun.

What are some of the challenges you faced with Shifting Sands regarding encounters or situations in the book? Like the race, and the libraries and all that? Any good tips?

Thanks!

In a homebrewed system I created (based on d20), I had a minor artifact that the party stumbled upon called the Ring of Bags. It was super lame, and I expected them to sell it, but they found it enjoyable and hung onto it.

All it did was when you slipped it on an empty non-magical bag of random material, size, and design would appear in your hand. When you let go of it, it remained, but a new one would poof into your hand. It was essentially infinite bags. They kept it, and any time they wanted or needed a bag or sack, they used the ring. It was not game-breaking, but kind of funny how much use they had for it.

Consequently, same game, same party, they found a creepy shop that they went into. The shopkeeper asked them if they wanted to buy an eyeball, and he kept hounding them about it. It was a human eyeball that was magically preserved. Just to get him to stop asking about it, one of them bought it. As soon as he left the shop, he threw it away (it only cost him 1 gold). An hour later, he found it again in his pocket. He tossed it away again, and it reappeared an hour later. He smashed it, the same thing. He tried giving it away, and it would be back in his pocket. He had it for most of the campaign before he figured out the trick. He had to SELL it to be able to get rid of it; then the eyeball would be someone else's problem.

That homebrew system was fun! Haha.

I elaborate on death descriptions only for bosses, PCs, NPCs the PCs care about, and super cool moments, like an epic Nat 20 moment or when the player does something clever.

Mudfoot wrote:

But as you can pass through an ally's space, crashes would be reduced substantially as long as you're on good terms with other road users.

No road user is on good terms with other road users. :D

Fact!

It doesn't need to make sense, it's TTRPG ;p

Exactly! The OP isn't asking about all PF mechanics in the real world, they're asking about what are the real world consequences that would exist for PF mechanics. I wasn't thinking that all mechanics apply at the same time. I was isolating specific mechanics and trying to figure out what consequences there would be for them.

If ALL mechanics applied, it would just be an RPG, and this thread would be moot.

So my argument for teleport replacing most commercial air travel was just about teleport, not all PF's mechanics.

I don't think PF's WBL for players or NPCs would work in a real economy, so I didn't factor it in. I was factoring in mostly a real world-like economy, in which I still think if magical teleportation existed, commercial air travel would be less of a thing.

Besides, as a GM, I hardly ever look at the NPC WBL. An NPC is as wealthy as I need them to be for the situation. But I DO admit, @Carrauntoohil, that if WBL were a factor involved, yes, teleport would be much harder to pull off.

My whole argument makes some assumptions (Magical study leading to more accessible magic, real world economics, etc.). Still, in my opinion, real world teleportation would highly reduce the need for commercial air travel.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Suddenly I have this vision that the result of "Fix whatever is wrong inside this person" would depend very much upon point of view, so you'd better be REALLY careful about your choice of care provider.

:D :D :D

Weeeeeeeellll, quality of healthcare can be pretty variable even now. This just makes it even more fun.

Erastil: "This guy definitely needs antlers.

Bahahaha! I could SO see this happening! Depending on the hospital and the faith of the one healing you, all kinds of great stuff would happen! :-D God forbid you get a cleric of Lamashtu to heal you up that day.

This made my day!

7-13 is what I was thinking as a good range. You have enough class abilities and cool equipment to be a heroic adventurer, but things can still be dangerous to you.

I'm not a fan of 1-2, I think 3 is fine. That's when you start getting the good stuff.

It's better than D&D 5e, I don't think you feel like a real character in 5e until about level 5 in my opinion. :-P

My girlfriend accidentally created a feat.

It's an ability that activates when an argument initiates, summoning a monster as if using the summon monster spell.

Snowball link for refrence.

There are two versions of this spell, a conjuration version, and an evocation version. They operate slightly differently, but since you're asking about the evocation version, that is what I'll address.

This is how I would interpret the rules if I were GMing this scenario.

Because the snowball spell is a magical effect, the "throw" part of it is fluff. I imagine it as the spellcaster forming the ball of snow into their hand and throwing it, but the magical energy guides it rather than the spellcaster's aim.

The spell does not state that you use the thrown weapons rules but does say it's a ranged touch attack, so it would follow those rules. So, like any other ranged spell, it is treated as a ranged attack and takes any penalties that apply. -4 if cast into melee (without precise shot), and -2 per 5' underwater.

I hope this helps.