KwwB's page

Organized Play Member. 29 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS


Any other DM's out there that have run into their PC's kingdom being WAY to powerful? Currently we are making the transition from book 4 to book 5 and the PC's are building fourteen, yes FOURTEEN medium size (100 troops) armies. I still need to get what CR each army will be but I know for certain that it will be way over the proposed size of a CR 11 army overall.

Now. Some of this is my fault. I didn't keep tremendous tabs on what exactly happened each month during the kingdom stuff, but that is because I was concentrating on the story provided in the books and adding my own flair here and there.

I have a player who was and still is extremely excited about building the kingdom so he has pretty much done it on his own with minimal input from the other players. They have never shown much interest at all. Sure they will do some kingdom rolls now and then, talk about what buildings they would like to see, but that is it. Nothing to the extent of what this one player does.

In book four, part one, where Drelev attacks Tatzlford, I had to make a few things happen to make it so that the attack could even happen. First off, Tatzlford was already built out to a comprise a full district, which equates to a population of roughly nine THOUSAND people. For a reference, Pitax's population is just shy of six thousand per book five. This is just one of roughly 6-7 cities that are like this at that point in the game, with the capital being even larger. Gives you an idea of how crazy the kingdom is.

For a brief story about what happened to Tatzlford look here : http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kfk2&page=4?Blood-for-Blood#196

I figured that having a city such as Tatzlford burn to the ground would mean the kingdom would have a terrible time doing anything for the next LONG while. Here is where another mistake comes in on my part, and the player who is controlling the kingdom either read something wrong, or just plain out cheating since he thought it was b~%*@&%!, or he didn't want his baby compromised, what have you. Having a city like Tatzlford burn to the ground at the size it was at equaled 184 unrest points, which according to the player meant that kingdom checks would just have -184 to each check, which is what was done, and the kingdom was STILL able to make checks and continue building things to deal with the unrest. According to the actual RULES, anything over 20 unrest means the kingdom devolves into anarchy, and the PC's have to do something or a string of somethings special to earn the trust of the kingdom back.

I wish this is what had happened. It makes the MOST sense to me. Why have a city like Tatzlford with a population of 9,000 people, and not REALLY protect it. There was no standing army there, and IIRC the only defensive buildings were city walls, and possibly a barracks. There was a custom story driven DM and player constructed militia there comprising of fifty or so NPC's with minimal skills, but that is hardly what a city like Tatzlford should have.

Essentially. They built way to quick, and built buildings and hex improvements that only helped with the kingdom roll checks, and nothing else. AKA power gaming the kingdom, which then bit them in the ass, or at least I wish it had if the rules had been followed...

So here we are, closing out book four, eight months have passed since Tatzlford burned to the ground and the kingdom according to my kingdom player has recovered. This is setting up any mass combat in book 5 to be a joke, roflstomping Pitax's standing army into the ground.

What suggestions do you have to fix this? I appreciate your input! My game is in a downward spiral from my perspective!


While the character might be able to sneak attack on the charge I highly doubt that his mount can do the same thing.

I'm not a rules expert and by RAW it might be allowed, but it doesn't make sense.

Now if the character could find a way to use the lance without the horse that actually made sense then maybe I'd allow it.

**EDIT**

After reading your question again I would say that it is 3x(d8)+2d6 . Normally additional dice are NEVER added in multipliers.


Neil Spicer wrote:
KwwB wrote:
Has anyone had your PC's lose the battle at Tatzlford?....Any creative suggestions for this scenario?

You can play up the danger represented by Drelev's new alliance with the Tiger Lord barbarians and Nyrissa's monstrous minions (like the trolls, fey, etc.). Clearly, there should be some ramifications on the PCs' reputation and approval as leaders of the kingdom if their ineptitude allowed a border town like Tatzlford to fall. Maybe further threats could begin to eat away at the edges of their territory...too many and too widespread for them to address all at once. Then, the adventure could turn towards them finding the instigator of all their troubles and a direct conflict with the Drelev Demesne.

Bottom line, even a defeat at Tatzlford can serve as the catalyst for how and why the PCs would turn their attention toward the latter parts of the adventure in "Blood for Blood." The trick is going to be in how you present those opportunities and stir up their interest in fighting back. Basically, all the headaches that the rulers/leaders of a young kingdom should face.

Best of luck,
--Neil

Thanks Neil. I was headed this direction in my own mind. Knowing the back story of Baron Drelev, his... interesting alliance with Pitax and the Barbarians. I am more apt to have something come at the PC's. Once Baron Drelev fully realizes what happened at Tatzlford, I feel he would then try to impress Pitax more by further showing his strength against the PC's empire, and or that Pitax finds out and directly confronts the PC's kingdom in rush for more power. My PC's kingdom is VERY VERY wealthy for where it should be at this point in the adventure path. Having Tatzlford burn to the ground was also a very great story driven way to reduce the wealth of my PC's kingdom as I feel it is way to wealthy.


Has anyone had your PC's lose the battle at Tatzlford? Sparring you all the details of my campaign my PC's didn't kill the last troll until around the 17th round of the trolls being in the city.

Because of this I ended up having Tazlford burn to the ground since the mercenaries who got inside the city were free to light fires and take what loot they could because the trolls had killed so many villagers and anyone willing to protect their home.

Any creative suggestions for this scenario?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, she ended up captivating four of the six PC's. The oracle of life who basically never hits things, and has purely healing/support spells and feats, and the two-weapon fighter resisted. The next round she made the fighter protect her via suggestion.

Regardless to say it was pretty bad, and I knew it would be which is why I came looking here for answers because I thought it was very likely to be a TPK. The party is very very bad at will saves. Both the wizard and the rogue have 7 wisdom, which they chose, essentially for power gaming.

Two of the six party members died, that baobhan sith drained the oracle of battle (yes the party has two oracles) to death from CON damage, and the grimstalker from one of the outlying towers was there to aid his "love" (the PC's encountered him previously, but he successfully got away) killing the party wizard; mostly because the wizard acted like an idiot.

All in all I think it was a very memorable fight that no one will forget, which is the best outcome regardless of player deaths.

Thanks to everyone for your help! :)


Squeatus wrote:
...because grappling is an action that is sustained the entire round(s) and a claw attack is just one of many things you're capable of doing during a round, I'd guess.

Ahhhh spot on. So basically if she dazes everyone with her dance it could be a TPK :(

Would the person she is attacking while dancing be able to fight back? From what I can see the answer would be no. They just sit there and let her tear them to shreds...


Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:
KwwB wrote:
Tem wrote:

It was clarified in the RRR GM thread that she cannot grapple while dancing. So, even in the unlikely scenario that every party member fails the save, she would have to resort to some other way to keep others busy while she feeds. Of course, she does have many other tools at her disposal, so it could still be a very deadly encounter but it's not exactly a one roll TPK.

My PCs discovered that even though they were all 5th level, the quickling gave them so much trouble that they shouldn't explore any further into the keep. Of course, she'll still be almost as deadly to 6th and/or 7th level PCs if they come back later.

Saw this post and found the spot in the RRR you referred to. Knowing this now makes this encounter laughable. Even if the baobhan sith captivated every party member, as soon as she successfully grapples one of them the rest of the party is no longer captivated and she dies in a round or two. She can't even captivate any of them again if she wanted to.

Use of suggestion and entangle might be the only way to save this encounter. Or use of "I'm the DM" and I'm making this encounter memorable :P

If she has everyone captivated, she can take them on one at a time at her pleasure, using her claw attacks- leaving the one who appears to be the groups most competent warrior for last to grapple.

How so? If grappling someone would break the dance on everyone because she is no longer "sustaining" the dance, then how can she attack and sustain the dance?


Tem wrote:

It was clarified in the RRR GM thread that she cannot grapple while dancing. So, even in the unlikely scenario that every party member fails the save, she would have to resort to some other way to keep others busy while she feeds. Of course, she does have many other tools at her disposal, so it could still be a very deadly encounter but it's not exactly a one roll TPK.

My PCs discovered that even though they were all 5th level, the quickling gave them so much trouble that they shouldn't explore any further into the keep. Of course, she'll still be almost as deadly to 6th and/or 7th level PCs if they come back later.

Saw this post and found the spot in the RRR you referred to. Knowing this now makes this encounter laughable. Even if the baobhan sith captivated every party member, as soon as she successfully grapples one of them the rest of the party is no longer captivated and she dies in a round or two. She can't even captivate any of them again if she wanted to.

Use of suggestion and entangle might be the only way to save this encounter. Or use of "I'm the DM" and I'm making this encounter memorable :P


First off. Thank you bunches for doing these conversions. I've enjoyed them immensely. I spend a lot of time preparing for my sessions and generally have to increase the CR myself which takes sooooo much time as I'm newer to DMing Pathfinder.

With these adjustments to match six adventurers, has anyone noticed that some of the solo creatures are just plain... ouch. I currently have some players complaining now about how hard creatures are.

The first encounter with the werewolf was not too hard, but when I confirmed a crit with his greataxe on our ranger. It straight out killed her. In the book his average crit damage would be somewhere around 34, on a class that has d10's for hit points, that type of hit would most likely just knock them unconscious or they would have a few hit points left.

With the modified version the average crit damage is somewhere around 52 which is straight up kill zone, even for d10's with decent CON.

Now they ran into the modified Scythe Tree and I wasn't going to be mean enough to have all four attacks hit the same target (unless there wasn't anyone else in range). This usually equated to two attacks each on two targets. I killed another character this combat with two crits, one each round, back to back rounds. Given that there are four attacks a round from this tree it is obviously more probable to get crits. The rogue in the party acted like a little ***** when it was evident to him that this tree had a very high AC (24, 22 when it had the opportunity to cleave). The rogue didn't land a single blow the entire fight.

Should I just roll with the idea that crits are crits and players generally die from them? And ignore the rogue for not rolling over a 14 on a monster with 24 or 22 AC?


I'm all about the rewarding, I'm just afraid that they will outpace the module if it wasn't intended for them to get experience from "peace full" completion of the encounter AND the experience from the quest they receive from said encounter.

I'll probably end up adding all the experience up and seeing if it gives the intended experience for the module. Unless someone chimes in within a week with solid evidence either way :p

I also don't want them lagging behind as well, so thanks for reminding me of that Talon Moonwalker.


Quick question for a few encounters. For encounters like "The Grove of The Grove of Tiressia" and "A Delicate Situation" should I award experience for the adventurers for finishing these without resolving to combat? Or just the EXP for the quests associated with them?


I can't even understand your question. Add on top of the fact that you don't put much information out there makes it less likely to get any help.

I have one thing to say...

Isn't it already haunted? BY FREAKING DAVIK NETTLES HIMSELF?


It appears that they would then want creatures with multiple attacks with grab to attack, grapple via grab, hold grapple 'till start of turn then release and attack the same as it did before.

Seems a little retarded to me. Once you have something grappled why would you let it go just to grapple it again...


Wow... I searched more threads about this and it's a complete cluster...

To me :

Quote:
The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself.

means that it can maintain any grapple as a free action at -20 and not be grappled in turn.

It seems rather absurd that a creature with 8 attacks (all having the grab modifier) can attack eight different targets on the same round, grappling them all with grab... Then on the next turn it completely forgets that it's a big bad monster with 8 tentacles that can all crush the life out of creatures... instead it can only concentrate on grappling and crushing the life out of one creature.

That is the main reason why I think it is a free action.

We really need a ruling from Paizo on what they intend for monsters with multiple attacks with grab WITHOUT constrict or swallow whole.


wraithstrike wrote:

Your interpretation is correct in that it is part of that free action, but you made one error. That is a -20, not a -2. That is why that option is almost never used.

The bear can also only make one check to maintain a grapple which is a standard action so even if it grappled two people it would have to let one of them go on the next round.

Hmmmm. You have me confused now. It is a free action at -20 to the CMB check. So if the bear has +18 CMB to maintain a grapple on a target who didn't escape, he would only then be at -2 to maintain the grapple.

So as you said it was a free action why could it not maintain the grapple on two targets at -2 and also bite someone?


wraithstrike wrote:
Now if the bear was surrounded or outnumbered in melee I can see it foregoing the grapple since even animals in the wild won't concentrate on one foe if they are outnumbered, but if someone engages the bear in melee before anyone else is in the bear's threat range I can see it going for the grapple.

Agreed. It just seems to me that a monster with multiple attacks and GRAB, but not CONSTRICT or SWALLOW WHOLE would never maintain the grab (grapple).

I just finished talking to one of my friends who has DM'd 3.5 and Pathfinder much more than I have. He mentioned this part of Grab:

Quote:
The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself.

I read the "or simply use" part of that as a free action.

So the bear could simply use its claw at a total of -2 to maintain the grapple and then still claw and bite something. Or a more extreme example, it could have two things grappled, one in each claw, and maintain both at -2 and bite something else or one of the grappled creatures. Granted the bear is at dice -2 and a normal level 1 or 2 PC would be at dice - dice +5. So it is much more likely that the PC wouldn't be grappled anymore.

CMD 9 (+13 grapple granted by grab, +5 circumstance bonus to maintain grapple on creature that didn't escape) total +18.

This is purely what the rules allow, not what the bear might or might not actually do.


So more than likely the bear would fight like normal until it had something grappled.

Then each round after it would maintain the grapple with +18 and only deal 1d6+5 damage until creature it had grappled was unconscious/dead.

Played like that it hardly feels like the creature is CR4. Though I agree this is most likely what a bear would do. At least until it felt like the three other creatures around it were much more of a threat.


Resurrecting this thread. Better than starting a brand new one I guess :)

I'm learning to DM Pathfinder and I find grab attacks a little confusing.

Take something simple, like a Grizzly Bear (pg.31 B1)

Its attacks are as follows:

Melee 2 claws +7(1d6+5 plus grab), bite +7(1d6+5)

CMB is +9 (+13 with grapple)

Question 1: If this Grizzly does a full round attack it claws twice, and bites once. Does each claw get a grab attempt if they hit different targets? Or do both claws have to hit the same target?

Question 2: The bear has something grappled via grab. On the creatures turn it doesn't escape. Next turn the bear could maintain the grapple as a standard action, but doing so would only yield 1d6+5 damage via grab rules... but it would have +13vs CMD instead of +7vs AC to do this. Why would the bear do this though? It seems it would be better to end the grapple as a free action, then full round attack for another 2claws and bite with the potential for 3d6+15 damage, triple what maintaining a grapple would yield.

For creatures like the Xill mentioned above that has even more attacks on a full round attack; it seems obvious that it would absolutely NOT want to maintain only a single grapple.

It almost appears that monsters with "grab" on attacks would never maintain a grapple unless they also have constrict.


It lists the Constrictor Snakes CMB at +5 (+9 grapple). I just came across this.

Quote:
Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple.

So the snake would indeed have a +14 to maintain a grapple. That's pretty frightening to a level 1 character who was unlucky enough to be the snakes first target :O


Thank you wraithstrike. So on the second round if the snakes maintains the grapple he can either deal the 2d4+8 total damage if he decides the damage option, otherwise he could do the other options and still deal 1d4+4 from constrict.


Re-read some stuff after that post. After a successful grapple on the first round, if the target grappled by the snake doesn't escape, he also gets a +5 bonus to continue to grapple. So on the second round the snake would have +14 grapple to maintain?


If someone could help me clarify this that would be awesome. Tonight I'm probably going to be throwing stuff at my party that constricts. In the beastiary on pg 255 the Constrictor Snake would do the following... I think...

Bite someone in melee. Successful hit deals 1d4+4 damage. The snake can then attempt to grab as a free action that doesn't provoke AOO. He does this with a +9 to his grapple check. If successful he and his opponent now get the "grappled" condition, and the snake deals an additional 1d4+4 damage due to constrict. This is all in one round.

Then on the second round, the snake would then attempt to maintain the grapple as a standard action. +9 on the grapple check as before. Now... if he succeeds how much damage does he do? Does he do grab damage and constrict damage? So 2d4+8 ? Or just constrict damage 1d4+4

I would assume it would be 2d4+8, otherwise why maintain the grapple.

Thanks in advanced to you more knowledgeable players and GM's.


Stockvillain wrote:

@KwwB

When it makes a single attack via Standard action, you get to pick which attack it uses [a claw or a bite]. Full attack goes through all the ones listed [e.g. 2 claws & 1 bite]. Remember to apply the listed attack bonus, even if using a secondary attack as the only attack with a Standard action; secondary natural attacks have a penalty unless you've got feats ameliorating the situation.

So regardless if it separates multiple forms of attacks with either a comma, the word AND, or the word OR, if the monster uses a standard action to attack it only gets ONE attack even if the attack chosen has multiples listed? Example : 2 claw, 6 bites, 1 gore. It only gets to claw ONCE or bite ONCE if it uses those forms of attack.

But if the monster uses a full round action to attack it gets to attack with ALL listed forms of attack unless they are separated with the word OR? Example : Melee +3 holy greatsword +27/+23/+17 (3d6+15/19-20) OR slam +24 (2d8+12)


I'm still confused. I'm learning to DM Pathfinder after moving from DnD 4e and monster stat blocks are not as clear as 4e.

For example in Beastiary under Bear, Grizzly (pg31) it lists the following under Melee.

Melee 2 claws +7(1d6+5 plus grab), bite +7(1d6+5)

What exactly does this mean? If the bear uses only a standard action to attack, does it get either 2 claw attacks or 1 bite attack? Or does it only get 1 claw or 1 bite?

When it uses a full round action to attack does it get both claws and the bite?

Then on the monster Bulette (pg 39) it has the following for Melee.

Melee bite +13(2d8+9/19-20) and 2 claws +12(2d6+6)

The kicker here is the word AND instead of just a comma separating the different forms of attacks. So if a Bulette takes a standard action to attack does it get the bite and both claws? Or does that require a full round action?


Purplefixer wrote:

'rises around you' seems generally to be flavor text. It has a range of 20', so by the rules in the Spells chapter of the core rules, it can be cast centered anywhere within 20' of the caster. You actually don't want to be in the mist when it's cast, so it's wise to clear out of dodge when the wizard whips this puppy out. It hits caster, friend, foe, mounts, innocent barmaids, and kittens alike with 1d2 wisdom damage a round!

Enchanters are gonna LOVE this one...

This doesn't seem right to me... Well. Let my clarify. Casting it away from yourself, fine. But I read it that anything in the mist takes 1d2 wisdom damage, but only once. Maybe I'm missing some rule about persistent effects and damage every round ect...

Can anyone clarify this for me please? My Illusion spec wizard would love this spell if it was 1d2 wisdom a ROUND! :)


Awesome! Thank you all for the help!


I'm currently playing a rogue, and I'm looking at multiclassing into wizard. There are a few questions I have that I couldn't find the answer to. First off the rogue talent "Resiliency":

Quote:

Resiliency (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this ability

can gain a number of temporary hit points equal to the
rogue’s level. Activating this ability is an immediate
action that can only be performed when she is brought to
below 0 hit points. This ability can be used to prevent her
from dying. These temporary hit points last for 1 minute.
If the rogue’s hit points drop below 0 due to the loss of
these temporary hit points, she falls unconscious and is
dying as normal.

I put in bold the part that concerns me. Does this refer to how many levels in rogue you have? Or your total level? AKA Rogue3/Wizard4 would get 3 temporary hit points or 7 temporary hit points?

Secondly, wizard school specialties, example:

Quote:

Illusionists use magic to weave confounding images,

figments, and phantoms to baff le and vex their foes.
Extended Illusions (Su): Any illusion spell you cast with a
duration of “concentration” lasts a number of additional
rounds equal to 1/2 your wizard level after you stop
maintaining concentration (minimum +1 round). At 20th
level, you can make one illusion spell with a duration of
“concentration” become permanent. You can have no more
than one illusion made permanent in this way at one
time. If you designate another illusion as permanent, the
previous permanent illusion ends.
Blinding Ray (Sp): As a standard action you can fire a
shimmering ray at any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch
attack. The ray causes creatures to be blinded for 1 round.
Creatures with more Hit Dice than your wizard level are
dazzled for 1 round instead. You can use this ability a number
of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
Invisibility Field (Sp): At 8th level, you can make yourself
invisible as a swift action for a number of rounds per
day equal to your wizard level. These rounds do not
need to be consecutive. This otherwise functions as
greater invisibility.

Put in bold the part in question again. Would a Rogue3/Wizard5 get access to Invisibility Field? Or only a Rogue3/Wizard8 ?


Awesome! Thank you very much for clarifying this for me!


I'm not understanding how the Half elf rogues favored class option is of any use whatsoever!

"Rogue: Add a +1/2 bonus on Bluff checks to feint and
Diplomacy checks to gather information."

Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly but to me it means that it would take TWO levels of taking this favored class option to get +1 on Bluff to feint and +1 on Diplomacy to gather information... Why not just get +1 Bluff on a level up and +1 Diplomacy on a level up to equal the same bonus but to the WHOLE skill not just specific parts of the skill. Not to mention spending an entire level with +1 to either skill instead of waiting for the second level for both to kick up from +1/2 to +1.