MechE_'s page

well, augment summoning applies so I don't see why others should not.

I'll second this.

I would expect anyone who goes to the expense of a serious magical trap (permanent, self resetting etc.) would make sure to cover it with a thin sheet of lead.

This is one possible "in game" answer to the situation, and makes a decent amount of sense. Thus, detect magic might find some traps (such as an alarm spell, etc.), but would not find more complicated traps.

Personally, I've just houseruled the detect magic spell to be Touch range. I find that it puts a bit of the mystery and danger back into basic exploration and interaction with the world. It also has the side effect of making illusions and traps more difficult to deal with, which sort of multiplies the additional mystery and danger. This may not be for every group of players, but I like it a lot.

So, considering chain challenge is a thing, and mid-high level cavaliers can challenge nearly everything they fight, do you also have a feat to allow inquisitors to chain their judgements?

I personally like classes that are more versatile than just a fighter or a wizard, but that's not everyone's cup of tea. Many new players enjoy those classes or even *gasp* a rogue! But in my opinion, the Inquisitor has a bit too much packed into it.

It is on occasion necessary for a GM to mediate such issues - this is an unfortunate requirement of us. In your specific case, I can see both parties concerns here and without personally experiencing it, I can't say to what extent each player is in the right and in the wrong. (Though generally in these situations, each player is wrong to some extent.)

My advice
Sit them down outside of a game session, just you and the two of them and have an honest conversation, starting it off by telling each of them to explain how they "feel" about the recent tension in their friendship. If necessary, begin by sharing how the tensions during the gaming session have made you "feel". Continue asking them "feel" questions and try to open a dialogue. (This sounds ultra cheesy, but neither person can argue how the other "feels", so using that word reduces the experience from argument to sharing of emotions... It's a standard move in relationship counseling.) If your group is the kind that doesn't mind a few libations, I suggest starting the conversation off with a single cool drink in each person's hand to relax the mood just a bit.

After some (hopefully positive) conversation between the three of you, simply explain to them that the tension between the two of them is unsustainable and if it continues, you will be forced to remove one of them. Stress that this is NOT the desired outcome and that you enjoy playing with each of them and would like to continue doing so. But also raise the point that the current situation is sapping the fun from the game and that is unfair to the group as a whole. Conclude this brief warning by pointing out that you're sorry to see their friendship deteriorate, but that being friends is not necessary for both of them to continue playing, they just need to dial the tension way down and take it easy on each other.

20) Realizing that Golarion is not Earth and that Golarion need not have suffered a cataclysm (meteor) that wiped out the dinosaurs.

Agreed. Though, Golarion did suffer at least on cataclysm, (a meteor, I think) referred to as "Earthfall", which was the undoing of ancient Thassilonian society. The exact scale and consequences of this impact outside of Varisia is not defined to my knowledge, so perhaps one can be led to believe that it's impact elsewhere was significantly less severe.

Of course, this event could be responsible for the death of a great number of dinosaurs, except that they were able to survive in some regions - namely the Mwangi Expanse. Of course if you take this to the earth extreme of dinosaurs roaming and ruling the planet, then the fact that Earthfall happened only 10,000 years ago makes the evolution of diverse species such as modern mammals and humans HIGHLY unlikely, unless this was somehow aided by magic... But I digress...

It's a common house rule to have feats select weapon groups instead of specific weapons.

I have also added this to my list of houesrules.

I hate playing a fighter, taking weapon focus in a longsword and then having a cool magical short sword drop and not getting my feat bonus to it because they are not identical.

Did anyone else catch this Unchained Spoiler in the FAQs?

I love it - Rogues should be able to more reliably get sneak attack, even if other classes that have access to sneak attack cannot. Hopefully there's more stuff in Unchained to help Rogues be more consistent.

I'm also very excited for the Full Attack replacement alternative rules. I had thought up a houserule that I'm considering using, but I'll see what Unchained has to offer first.

Well... I'll gladly give the book a chance, but I certainly won't preorder it. I'd advise everyone else to do the same.

Your advice seem solid, but I like to live dangerously! Also, who doesn't like hearing "I told you so!" from time to time...?

I am not sure how one would combine spell casting with weird words other than a quicken spell, since the new weird words retains the text about the performance being used no quicker than a standard action. Perhaps I'm missing something?

EDIT: Also, the Spellsong feat technically wouldn't work with weird words, since it isn't a spell but a performance. Admittedly, I think that is less of a problem than the fact that someone is getting blasted by rays of sonic damage from your performance, lol. Your GM may rule this any number of ways.

DO 20/- From a Demilich comes to mind immediately. I can't think of any DR higher than that.

Devilkiller wrote:

Has Paizo actually revealed any details about the new Summoner, or is the idea that they're limiting the eidolon to a menu of a few choices purely conjecture?

No one from Paizo has stated that. In fact, as a rogue eidolon myself, if evolutions no longer existed and you were unable to customize your eidolon at all beyond selecting from a menu of a few choices, I would be pretty shocked at this point. I know this is just one post, though, and the common wisdom on the internet holds the opposite view, but I would urge you to consider that I am pretty likely to be correct, as a rogue eidolon.

"Never mind that I'm also a Paizo Designer and that Unchained is the first major project I've worked on." lol

The witch in my old Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign tied some straw to the end of her Staff of Necromancy and flew around with it between her legs. Good stuff.

Much appreciated, PDT.

My druid has found Aqueous Orb to be a fantastic "pirate / weather" themed spell. Pick up those stupid enough to step foot on your ship deck uninvited and when you've got a full orb, drop them over the side.

Can't find the link from my phone at work, but a Paizo rep (I want to say a PFS one, specifically) stated that he had asked the rules team about this item, they had agreed it was under priced, that it required errata, and that was the reason it is currently banned in PFS.

In accordance with that, I have adjusted the price for my home game - 12 out something along those lines. Even at that price it has still been purchased by both archers in 2 years of play, so I see nothing wrong with the adjustment.

@James - The idea of confusion was to allow you to do something other than dealing damage with it if you wanted. Scorching Ray allows you to hit 2 and 3 targets in time which is intentionally less than 10 targets. I'm not sure I like the idea of being able to divide the damage in your ability James and then the creatures being immune for a day seems rough. Flavor-wise, why would a Sound Striker get such an ability that just deals damage when they already get a very similar ability without the limitation that fires a growing number of rays? I get that this one is limited to hitting a target once, but it seems a bit "gamey" to me. (Side note: perhaps a Will save should negate the suggested confusion effect of Wierd Words - that would overall make the ability better since more monsters have poor Will saves than Fort saves.)

@Devilkiller - Perhaps I'm missing some ability, but doesn't the verbiage following verbiage prevent a Sound Striker from using these inspires more than once per round? "A sound striker gains the following type of bardic performance. Neither performance can be performed more quickly than a standard action." Also, I had recalled seeing the idea basing the ability on Scorching Ray tossed around a while back - Thanks.

@mplindustries - Granted SKR is no longer employed by Paizo, I would not be surprised if some of the other rules guys shared his sentiment that the Tundercaller requires errata.

@Devilkiller - If I am missing something that allows one to bipass the "no faster than a standard action" restriction, then add my name to the list of people who agree that activating it 3 times in a single round is over the top. As is, at level 7 you could start this performance as a standard action, then start another performance as a move action to help your allies. But you'd be consuming 3 round of performance to accomplish that, so that seems fine.

A good idea indeed - I'll take the first crack at it.

They say that words can cut deeper than any blade, and the sound striker proves this true. Using music and words as a weapon, he can focus his performances into a deadly delivery.

Bardic Performance: A sound striker gains the following type of bardic performance. Neither performance can be performed more quickly than a standard action.
Wordstrike (Su): At 3rd level, the sound striker bard can spend 1 round of bardic performance as a standard action to direct a burst of sonically charged words at a creature or object. This performance deals 1d4 points of damage plus the bard's level to an object, or half this damage to a living creature. This performance replaces inspire competence.
Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can start a performance as a standard action, lashing out with 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet. These are ranged touch attacks. Each weird word deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard's Charisma bonus (Fortitude half), and the bard chooses whether it deals bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage for each word. This performance replaces suggestion.

Total character count: 1141 (including spaces, excluding the archetype title block).

First attempt at a replacement:
Wordstrike (Su): At 3rd level, the sound striker bard can spend 2 rounds of bardic performance as a standard action to direct bursts of sonically charged words at creatures or object. This performance acts as the scorching ray spell but deals sonic damage instead of fire damage and uses the bard class level as the caster level. This performance replaces inspire competence.
Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker may confound the targets of his Wordstrike rather than damaging them. This ability functions as Wordstrike except that enemies struck by Weird Words are confused for 1 round per Weird Word they are struck by (Fortitude negates). This is a mind affecting effect. This performance replaces suggestion.

Wordstrike + Wierd Words character count: 722

I like that it has precedent, comes online & progresses the same as the Scorching Ray spell would for a full caster, and feels familiar. Being sonic damage, it fits thematically and both replacement abilities seem to fit the "Sound Striker" theme without having to change the name. The ability to use it for a second function seems cool to me, but also keeps the character count low by referencing the first ability. =) This ability may be a bit weak, but at least it gives another option. I think consuming 2 rounds for the performance is a fair price to pay for what it does, but I'm admittedly very conservative when it comes to writing new material.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with the idea for the 15 minutes of thought I put into it. Anyone have any critiques, modifications, or suggestions of their own?

Yeah, I don't really like that detect magic is a cantrip which reveals all magical auras (disguises, fake walls, magical traps etc.) That said, invisibility isn't the one I really worry about. Unless an invisible creature stupidly stands in your cone for a full 18 seconds, you won't be able to verify the spell or pinpoin it's exact location. If you know it's an invisible creature, you MAY be able to determine which of 3 hallways it moved down, but maintaining concentration on Detect Magic each round requires spending a standard action, so unless the creature is moving slowly (and why would he - the jig is up from detect magic), you won't be able to keep up with him.

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Saying that traits break the game is silly.

Saying that is silly is much more silly.

The traits you mentioned are more powerful than many feats.

Saying that anything "breaks the game" is silly. Pathfinder is a huge system used differently by each and every person and group that plays. Traits as currently written are very easily used for optimization and with certain builds they are more important than feats. For those of us who want to keep Pathfinder from creeping up in power with each new source of material, taking traits out of the equation is often just one of many steps. Does this mean that I think there's anything wrong with using traits? Of course not, some people just prefer to play a different game of Pathfinder.

1) DR/Magic being related to age has nothing to do with it being EX or SU. After all, a Dragon has other age related abilities which are clearly SU (such as a Breath Weapon).

As to whether it is EX or SU. Back in 3.5 they had that clearly defined but it was another thing that Pathfinder doesn't clearly define. 3.5 Rules Compendium p41 had it defined as:
Supernatural: Aligned (Good etc), Magic, Cold Iron, Silver, and Epic
Extraordinary: Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing, and DR/-

While Pathfinder is not 3.5 there is nothing in PF to contradict this information and with no other information being provided it is the only guideline we have.

Good points here - I agree, it should not work. Whether Thanks for the citation.

4) I would say Spell Sunder does not work, for a couple reasons.

One, in order to sunder the creature's spell effect you have to be able to attack the creature and this means attacking into the AMF. The SU ability wont work inside the AMF.
Two, Spell Sunder uses the word "dispelled" and AMF cannot be dispelled.

Good points here too and with my complete ignorance of spell sunder, I'll agree to this.

1) Normally DR/magic would be bypassed by Arcane Strike but DR 20/Magic is SU so is gone in an AMF.

Can you give a citing for this? In the Universal Monster Rules, damage reduction is listed as "(Ex or Su)". The additional dragon rules list a dragon's damage reducion as "Damage Reduction: Dragons gain damage reduction as they age..." So why would it be Su as opposed to Ex? Not that I have a good reason to make it Ex...

With that said, while not explicitly stated I would also rule Arcane Strike to be magic so wouldn't work in an AMF.

I think RAW Arcane Strike would work, but RAI, probably not.

3) Aroden's Spellbane is a 9th level spell that provides immunity to AMF. (Inner Sea Magic p52)

Good to know, thanks.

4) Spell Sunder is (su) so will not work.

But what if the Spell Sunder is used against the barrier when you encounter it, rather than entering it? I honestly have no clue how to rule this.

6) No, there are no rules in the game to model your 'bodypart' being X distance from your area. The GM shouldn't house rule something like this either since it is an attempt to bypass the intent of the AMF.

I agree with you about houseruling, I'm just trying to make sure that I'm understanding the RAW/RAI of Antimagic Field.

9) No, it is SU.

I just wasn't sure if an ability that could be projected outward could be sustained after Antimagic Field was cast.

In short, the dragon has no special abilities and is reduced to being a very heavily armored flying death machine.

Of course it's still deadly - Greater Vital Strike is nasty for dragons.

The biggest problem for PCs is going to be overcoming it's very high AC (natural armor is still a thing) and doing damage to it without the use of weapon enhancement bonuses, buffs, or spells.

Yeah, but a Dragon who just jumps in the middle and full attacks doesn't sound like a very interesting encounter.

If the player has a reach of 15' or greater then they should be able to retain most of their bonuses (weapon bonuses could be argued either way).

This would indeed help - I wouldn't let them use the weapon bonuses, but other buffs would help as normal.

So in an upcoming session, my party will run into a gargantuan sized dragon capable of casting 6th level spells. I have yet to redo the dragon's spell list, but with the recent Big Creatures and "Centered on You" FAQ, I'm most likely going to give the dragon the Antimagic field spell and having not used it before, I seek a number of clarifications/confirmations from my fellow forum users. I recognize that a dragon with DR 20/magic who eliminates all magical properties from attacks before they strike him it going to be nasty! But depending on what of his own abilities he can still use, it may not be that bad. (Also, this will be the last dragon that the party fights in this adventure, even the last one they fight with me as GM. I'll be moving away for a new job in 5 months, so let's go out with a bang!)

1) The Arcane Strike feat should overcome the dragon's DR XX/magic, right?
2) Are there any other means are there by which to overcome this DR?
3) The Mage's Disjunction spell references having a chance to destroy an Antimagic Field. There are no other spells that overcome an Antimagic Field, correct?
4) A Barbarian's Spell Sunder rage power should work, right? (By a strictly RAW reading, one could argue that since an Antimagic Field is on a creature, the Barbarian must close within reach, which likely brings him into the antimagic field and thus suppresses the rage power... I probably wouldn't make that ruling, but bonus points for discussing this corner case.)
5) Are there any other class features or abilities that could unexpectedly bipass/eliminate/adversely effect an Antimagic Field or the occupant of it?
(The next series of questions tries to clear up exactly what a Dragon can or cannot do while the Antimagic Field is active.)
6) Can a dragon use ANY of his normally supernatural abilties and have their effects extend out of his Antimagic Field?
7) His breath weapon, for example? (If not, could the dragon extend it's head outside of the Antimagic Field and throw the breath weapon or would the Antimagic Field "centered on him" follow his head and thus always be within the area of his own Antimagic Field?)
8) What about an ability such as a Blue Dragon's Storm Breath? Could the dragon create the cloud with the Antimagic Field up and then call down bolts?
9) How about the same Blue Dragon's Mirage ability?

Note that I'm specifically interested in answers to the above questions that are not class specific, save spellcasting, let's assume we have access to the Wizard List and the Cleric list. I'm also more interested in answers and ideas that come from the core line of rulebooks (excluding Mythic Adventures). All that said, feel free to give answers that go beyond these restrictions - I am certainly not the first person to think of Dragons and Antimagic Fields and certainly won't be the last GM to throw one at a party, so it's likely this thread will be found in the future with some people having the same questions as myself.

Chess Pwn - Very good point and one I hadn't considered. Still could be a bit confusing and ideally would be worded a bit differently, but perhaps not enough of a problem to issue errata for.

Mark - With this change it would probably be a good idea to remove the last line in the Antimagic Field spell text.
"Should a creature be larger than the area enclosed by the barrier, any part of it that lies outside the barrier is unaffected by the field."

Doesn't the Archaeologist Bard do a rather decent job of being an arcane trickster base class?

I was never a fan of the original ruling Paizo made, but as with everything, I spoke with my group about it so that we're all on the same page about how the rules work. It was then that I knew this ruling was a poor idea. Tt took me 10 minutes of explaining it for the more experienced guys to understand it and their response was "You're pulling our chain, right? That is the silliest rule I've ever heard."

Had the original ruling been what it is now, the response from most people would have been "Duh, it's been that way for ~14 years of 3.Xe." Instead, a ruling was made that required a much higher than average level of system mastery and changed many of the subtly accepted "rules" of the game. (Spell-like abilities normally aren't super valuable unless it's a decent spell, Prestige classes required 5-6 levels of a base class, etc.)

The real misstep Paizo made in this whole ordeal was ruling the way they did on the original FAQ a year and a half ago.

MechE_ wrote:

Good suggestions - for my next game I plan to allow characters to add 2 skill so their list of class skills and give them 2 bonus skill ranks at first level in lieu of traits.

It would be more "flavorful" if you chopped down the list of traits to include only those you wanted to use. Many traits offer the +1rank, +list of class skills for one or more skills.

IMHO the "fluff" part of the trait description can help players imagine who their PC was before beginning their adventuring career.

YMMV.

See, I read the traits and think "Why does my character need THAT background when I could instead use THIS background." Nothing about giving two equivalent skill use traits removes flavor, it just allows for more flexibility. Think of it as a DM approved "reflavor as needed, however needed". If a player wants to put one rank into heal and make it a class skills and claim to be a Caretaker, they are free to do that. They could also have been a combat medic, or perhaps a surgeon, etc. For new players who might have a hard time coming up with their own background, I recommend perusing the traits and advise them to use their bonus skill ranks to do something similar. The real goal here is to keep "traits" focused on character development rather than combat abilities.

The CR system is already designed for PCs to succeed. It has been my experience that traits (as written) are just one more tool that gets used differently by players with varying degrees of system mastery, contributing to the overall gap in PC effectiveness.

YMMV.

Nimoot wrote:

I have a DM that won't allow traits at all because they can "break the game"... Is this something that'll ruin character customization, or is this not a huge deal?

I do this myself. Most traits are pretty mediocre little bonuses that don't add much but flavor. Unfortunately there's a small handful that don't look like much to the untrained eye but basically just more tools to make casters nutso tough and they don't need anymore.

I have however added a houserule that at character creation everyone gets to pick a skill to make a class skill regardless of their classes skill list. The house rule's actually older than traits. I highly recommend it to anyone who gets rid of traits across the board.

- Torger

Good suggestions - for my next game I plan to allow characters to add 2 skill so their list of class skills and give them 2 bonus skill ranks at first level in lieu of traits.

if you're the GM just mark off uses per day when it's used in combat, if it never comes up, then it never comes up.

Agreed. There's no reason to deny a player the flavor they're looking for. If you want some silly justification, just say that he claws are only strong enough to strike for damage X times per day before the character breaks a nail (lol).

Minor thread jack here, so forgive me in advance...

Has anyone here been able to make a good brawler that wasn't totally outclassed by a monk of similar build? If so, how did you manage it?

As someone who hasn't played around with the Brawler, the above quote confuses me... For years the (hyperbolic & overstated) position was that the monk was terrible. Many people suggested giving it full BAB as a (partial) solution.

So I guess my question is, what does the Monk have that the Brawler does not? Is it the archetypes? Is it Flurry of Blows? How many levels of Monk are you comparatively better builds taking? Do your findings (possibly opinions) have any implications for the full BAB Monk in Unchained? Just curious to hear your thoughts Ravingdork.

Welcome back again Mr. Fishy. Glad to see they finally got you a computer in your GM interment camp. =)

So this just turned into another Player vs GM thread, eh?

It's been debated as often as Alignment and Paladin Codes, guys.

Can't we just agree to disagree and get back to the original topic at hand?

In general, this thread has been civil and the varying philosophies behind different opinions on which sourcebooks to use is absolutely pertinent to the original discussion. It just happens that players and GMs (frequently) tend to fall on opposite ends of the philosophy spectrum which result in competing interests. Having a discussion about what expectations are reasonable from both sides and where middle ground can be found is hardly a Player vs GM thread.

Oly wrote:

I personally think, though, that GM's should voluntarily start with the default as "all Paizo material is allowed" and then only disallow material if they have a real problem with it. If someone wants to use 3rd party material, I think a GM should at least look it over before saying no, but it shouldn't have the same presumption.

With that logic, you're including both Mythic Adventures, and the Occult Playtest, which aren't necessarily items that should be considered go to by default.

I don't think that a GM should be obligated to start out with any material they are not comfortable with. What the GM should do is state what materials he or she is going to support. Players can surredly ask about additional items, but should not push past the first "No."

It is often clear from reading these boards who is a GM first and who is a player first. Not that either side is right or wrong, but this is a prime example of that. Different perspectives are fine and even good when you consider how boring life would be if we were all the same.

What I've been doing recently (and plan to continue doing) is allow a list of core rulebooks (CRB, APG, UM, UC, ARG, ACG) minus a few bits (no uncommon races, no gunslingers or summoners), and adding in a bit of homebrew (I have created 3 classes so far). I then informing players I will normally approve on additional piece of material from another source - be it a single feat, an archetype, or a spell. Most frequently, I say yes to Paizo created content and most frequently, I say no to 3 pp content.

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

MechE_ wrote:

havoc xiii wrote:

Herolab allows you to toggle what it shows.

Thanks guys, this is good to know. (I did say that I wasn't familiar with Herolab.) Though with this knowledge, I can safely say that it was much more willful ignorance on the part of my player(s)... Ugh, infuriating...

On a side note, another reason I'm feeling cooler and cooler towards Herolab is that I have a growing number of houserules, which players seem to forget more frequently when using herolab. (However, this may also be willful.) Of course, is not a negative reflection on herolab, but more of a "the tool doesn't necessarily work well for me".
** spoiler omitted **

HL allows you to use house rules.

HL also has a community that will give you suggestions and tips on how to implement them.

I have always been able to figure it out, but this is nice to know in case I ever get stumped.

All great things to know, thanks guys.

Back on Topic: With so many source books coming out that my group doesn't use, I am finding my interest in these forums waning. (To be clear, I prefer not to use every book, so I'm good with this part.) It used to be that every time I read through a thread I would find at least one or two bits of information I didn't know. (Disintegrate wrecks most undead, you actually have to count the weight of your clothes in PF, creatures can still fly per RAW with a medium or heavy load in PF, etc.) But more and more, I find that the same amount of time spent on the forums is proving less and less productive. Sure, part of this is that I've learned a lot of the "low hanging fruits" and can now share some back with others, but more and more, I find the discussion moving to things that are not relevant to the game of Pathfinder that I play. It's a bit saddening to me, that's all.

Kryzbyn - I'd like to believe they don't purposefully publish crappy and/or broken options, but stuff like Sacred Geometry, Blood Money, extra make it hard. I find it difficult to believe that at least a fair amount of Paizo's designers don't ascribe to the philosophy of Timmy Cards.

Blood Money & Sacred Geometry were both published in settings books, where the focus of the authors was in building a fun and creative world. In the very limited context of the original RotRL campgin books, and in the 3.5e publishing context, Blood Money was fine as it was used by a creative author to make for an interesting story. (Sure, it has since been republished, but I doubt that it was given much balance thought at that point.) I have a great deal of respect for the setting team and James Jacobs in particular. I absolutely love Golarion! However, when it comes to rules text and balance, this is not their forte. This is a fact of having multiple teams with multiple focuses and is a necessary part of Paizo's current (profitable) business model. This is not to say that everything in the Core line or Rulebooks is perfect. It is, however, my opinion that when mechanics are the focus, they are gotten right a much higher amount of the time. (And for this, I greatly respect Jason Bulmahn and the rest of the rules guys.)

On the topic of "trap options", I want to point out that the designers have said a number of times that they try to avoid power creep - and they have done a relatively good job of that by most people's approximation. This means that the target for each individual feat, archetype, spell, or class is not the top end of the optimization scale, but rather the middle of the road. Thus, if you play in a game where high optimization is the normal (90% optimized or higher, for example), then it is a good guess that unless you're willing to take less optimal choices than "normal", only X% (10%) of the options in any new book will be "worthwhile" and the rest will be "trap options". If, however, you play in a more casual group of gamers where the rogue is not dead and someone actually played the core monk one time and didn't feel completely worthless, then I'm sure a lot more of the options in any new book would seem worthwhile.

One man's trap feat is another's obvious choice for flavor reasons.

BADWRONGFUN.

I have to agree with this position. Remember that everyone plays the game differently. Just because something doesn't work for you or your group doesn't mean there isn't another person or group out there who loves it.

Herolab allows you to toggle what it shows.

Thanks guys, this is good to know. (I did say that I wasn't familiar with Herolab.) Though with this knowledge, I can safely say that it was much more willful ignorance on the part of my player(s)... Ugh, infuriating...

On a side note, another reason I'm feeling cooler and cooler towards Herolab is that I have a growing number of houserules, which players seem to forget more frequently when using herolab. (However, this may also be willful.) Of course, is not a negative reflection on herolab, but more of a "the tool doesn't necessarily work well for me".

To be fair, if you're a player, you want to be able to look through the menu of what's available when thinking about your character. Sites like the PRD and ArchivesOfNethys make this even easier. If the GM has set out ahead of time what's legal, that's fine. If it's "on a case-by-case basis", it becomes much more cumbersome to make a character, as every thing you think about you have to ask about.

As GM, the larger the rules base gets, the heavier the burden of figuring out what's allowed. Once upon a time, a GM could say "everything Paizo", and have a chance of having some sense of what all of it was. Now, the burden on the GM is higher to select out the things he wants. Sure, you could just select individual books, that makes it easier -- but in reality, you probably want bits and pieces of everything. So, either you have a huge task of vetting stuff ahead of time, or you have to do "on a case-by-case" basis. In that latter case, even if you do have amenable players who agree with you that it's OK to ban some things, when a player asks for something, you're going to be tempted to want to let them have it.

So, while everybody seems to say "just disallow the things you don't like! what's the big deal?", as the base of mechanics (including classes, class abilities, archetypes, feats, spells, etc.) grows and grows, it gets tougher and tougher for the GM to have a handle on enough of it to actually do that.

I'm not saying that added options are bad. All I'm saying is that they do add a burden of things to keep track of in any event, and it's unrealistic to deny that, or to insist that it won't be a problem if you just have the right players.

rknop does a great job here of summarizing the majority of my concerns as a GM. Another thing I've had problems with is resources like the d20pfsrd and herolab make it very easy for some (more appropriately certain) players to accidentally (or "accidentally" on occasion) start grabbing feats, archetypes, and spells that aren't on the list of allowed source materials. So even if a GM does his homework ahead of time to lay out a list of allowable source materials, he may STILL be stuck policing character sheets on a regular basis. While I am not familiar with herolab, d20pfsrd at least lists the source material at the bottom of the page.

It's gotten to the point that enough stuff was done wrong with enough character over the years made using herolab that I plan to say "no herolab" the next time I start up a game. My hope is that having players write up their character sheets by hand will prevent them from making so many source material errors. Of course, they'll probably make other errors this way, but I don't mind helping a newer player write character sheets out up front as this helps build positive relationships between GM and player.

Monster design is within the DM's purview and as such, there are not really any hard rules. Sure, you can do it if you want. I'm not sure I'd recommend it though, but I don't know what monster you're looking at and what you plan to use it for. I would see if there are any other options first - perhaps another monster that you could only apply the young template to a single time, etc. But if you can't find what you want, then go for it.

@Skylancer4 - Yeah, I like the idea of playing a Gnome better. The final decision will probably depend on how the rest of the party shapes up. If we lack much melee damage, then perhaps the longspear/longsword half-elf will have to be played. Only thing I'm not sure about is how to play a LE Gnome... Every Gnome I've every played has been CG or CN, lol. Perhaps he looks down on other Gnomes of their foolhardy nature to the point of preferring to attack Gnome in combat first. I'm glad to hear that damage isn't the primary focus of the adventure path.

@Insain Dragoon - Thanks for the tip. I probably won't ask the DM if he will allow the feat, but rather point to it as an interesting way to handle leadership scores and the outlook of cohorts/minions in an evil game. Our group's houserule on Leadership is that the DM gets to make the character initially with a heavy amount of input from the character. But cohorts are almost never "optimally built" - they usually have a skill focus feat laying around and their stats aren't perfectly placed. But it never really hinders them from being helpful, we just try to keep cohorts & followers in the background of the game to allow the PCs to shine.

@Renegadeshepherd - I really like the Breadth of Knowledge feat, I'm using it on my Druid in Skull & Shackles right now. It's true that Half-Elf can take fast learner, but Gnomes get a +2 con bonus which is better, unless I'm missing something else.

I'm currently comparing two Archaeologist Bard builds. One a Dex based Scimitar wielding Gnome and the second a Str based longsword or longspear wielding Half-Elf. Each would take Lingering Performance, Arcane Strike, Weapon Focus, Trap Spotter, Spell Focus - Enchantment & Greater Spell Focus - Echantment, & Toughness by level 11. (Str build would take Power Attack & Dex build would take Weapon Finesse, obviously.) Use of Half-Elf & Gnome is fairly set in order to gain access to extra bardic performance rounds as favored class bonus for the first maybe 5 or 6 levels, ensuring that the Luck based performance bonus is active 90+% of the time during combat.

Sum total:
• Dex based Gnome build deals 30% less damage (across levels 1 to 20) than the Str based Half-Elf.
• Dex based Gnome will have 4 to 8 points higher armor class (size, dex, shield use) and some more HP.
• Dex based Gnome will have better "roguey skills", due to a higher Dex. Also +4 to stealth from size is nice.
• Dex based Gnome will have a higher Charisma modifier - +3 vs +4.

Note: There are a few house rules in play here. ..
• All weapons crit only on a 20/x2 with no confirmation rolls.
• Power attack (and deadly aim) have BAB requirement(s) of +5 and advanced at +10, +15, & +20 only.

Am I missing any good feats/build strategies? Note that the list of source materials includes only the CRB, APG, UM, UC, & UE. The ARG & ACG are not available. Neither are any softcover books. Is the (30%) reduction in damage worth the benefits

What are the other pcs? have you already an idea on them?

The discussion is still relatively fresh. One guy expressed interest in an Antipaladin or a Cleric and another guy mentioned a Witch, but I think both of those are "the first evil thing that jumped into my mind" sort of ideas.

In that case be the support. None of them know how to make a decent Cleric, Oracle, Bard, or Wizard.

Honestly I suggest Bard since just giving them straight pluses will be easy for them to grasp. Bard Archer works pretty well for limiting the Fort saves you'll take and giving you decent damage. Additionally your strong knowledge, social, and stealth skills will keep you relevant in all situations.

Well it's not that the other players aren't experienced, it's just that they don't build optimized characters in the PF system. They've all got 10 + years of 3.5e/PF experience and one of them has been playing in 1e, they just don't get into the nitty gritty of going through books or forums and looking for every mechanical advantage. They're the kind of guys who will play a rogue/wizard arcane trickster, still enjoy it, and make it reasonably effective by smart use of spell, good positioning, etc.

That said, a bard isn't an awful idea. I'm not completely sure I could get behind a bard though. I tend to like playing good martial characters or good casters - rogues & bards don't really appeal to me for some reason. (See earlier comment about me being the more mechanically inclined player at the table.) I can always put together a good character concept or two and see if they grab me - Any suggestions for bard archetypes? We just had a bard archer in our previous campaign, so I really hate the idea of going archery, but it seems that any other bard option is so far behind that it's almost not worthwhile... Ugh.

Since rolling in order will determine what you may be good at I would suggest you roll first, and choose a class second. If you try to be a barbarian and roll a 9 constitution or strength then you might be in trouble.

I've pointed this out as a primary concern and informed the DM that if we get 18, ?, ?, ?, ?, 8 and the ? marks are locked into position, I will be playing a wizard, witch, sorcerer, or oracle. He came around to seeing it my way and is reconsidering the stat generation method. Right now, he's thinking about using a standard array of 16, 15, 14, 13, 10, 8. This makes something like an Antipaladin much more attractive.

I also probably should have mentioned that the DM is limiting sourcebooks to - CRB, APG, UM, UC, UE. ARG & ACG are off the table. He could perhaps be convinced to allow single pieces of the ARG or ACG, but the justifications would need to be story/flavor reasons rather than power reasons. As is, I'm the player with the most system mastery by quite a long shot and the DM wants to keep the PCs on even footing as much as possible.

@Code 415 - Yes, Antipaladin is a good option also - Knight of the Sepulcher looks like a very fun archetype! (Updated OP to clarify that Antipaladin is most likely an option.) Being the disgraced son of noble would be fun, but might make infiltration or hiding yourself more difficult. Of course, that might be an incentive for piling ranks into the disguise skill, which is probably a good thing. And yes, Asmodeus is certainly an awesome deity choice. Any LE character I built would likely worship Asmodeus.

@Renegradeshepherd - I'm a bit worried about the stats myself too. The GM said he would set a minimum for combined rolls, so that might help. Still though, ending up with poor stat placement would be harsh (9 con on an elf... ugh) While Tiefling might be good mechanically, the GM is asking us to stick with core races for roleplay reasons (I updated the OP to indicate this). Perhaps instead of Elf for some choices, I should go Half-Elf or Human - I'll give it some thought. The GM does have some houserules to increase the strength or rogues (they get a good fort save, etc.) so that would help a bit, but I get the concern over playing a rogue into the high levels.

@Some Other Guy - Yeah, I am guessing the AP will be rough, so survivability and versatility are strong considerations. That said, being too versatile leads to a lack of specialization and I have good reason to trust my party, so if I play a full Wizard, I'm ok with relying on the party to protect me rather well.

I may have an opportunity coming up to play in a Way of the Wicked game over Roll20. For those of you who don't know, Way of the Wicked is an all evil campaign (suggested alignment is Lawful Evil) where the PCs work to undermine and eventually overthrow a strongly lawful good government. The DM tells me the adventure path will run up to 19th or 20th level. Stats will be 18, 4x (1d8+8 in order), 8.

So I'm working up evil character concepts right now. So far, I've got concepts (of varying depth) for a LE Arrogant Elf Transmuter Wizard, a NE "Wrath of the Land" Brute Barbarian, a LE Elf Rogue / Assassin, a NE Human Curse Witch, and a LE Cleric of Asmodeus.

I'm open to any advice, regarding the above concepts or other concepts. If anyone has played through Way of the Wicked, I value your thoughts as long as they don't contain spoilers. I'm not out to make the most powerful character, but since we will only have 4 players, it would be good if it was average or above average mechanically. Also, I prefer my characters to fill one of the old school standard themes "fighter", "cleric", "rogue", or "wizard".

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Edits:
• The Way of the Wicked Players Guide Link
• According to the player's guide the Antipaladin can be LE with GM approval (likely)
• Characters start at first level with ZERO gear.
• AP strongly suggests core races as infiltration is more difficult otherwise.

As a DM, I normally bake 3 weeks to a month of downtime into intermissions between each adventure path book (book 1 to book 2, book 2 to book 3, etc.). This time can be used to accomplish personal character objectives or to upgrade your magical items, normally done by hiring an NPC crafter.

When the samurai found an Elven Blade of historical make (+1 Elven Cured Blade) at level 3, she waited until level 7 to upgrade that same sword to a +2 bonus, then at level 11 she upgraded it to a +2 holy blade. She still remembers where it came from, and the fact that it was finely crafted by her ancestors 10 Elven generations ago is still in the character's mind, but it now provides the benefits she needs for it to "keep up".

Similarly, the Warpriest just found an ancient Thassilonian purple cloak which seems to slip out of your grasp (a cloak of minor displacement). When they get done with this AP book, I fully expect him to pay an extra 50% to add the effects of a cloak of resistance +2 or +3 to the cloak of displacement. This will allow him to keep the cool bonus and the ancient, mysterious nature of the cloak, while also getting the bonuses he "mechanically needs".

T;DR - With some baked in downtime and DM allowances for combined items (at the suggested 50% markup) you can add mechanical "big six bonuses" to acquired "cool, flavorful items" and get the best of both worlds.

Euphoric Tranquility. It's an 8th level spell, so it take a bit to come online, but it takes a single creature (character) out of the combat without a save. If you get attacked (enemy strikes you or an ally slaps you to snap you out of it), then you get a will save and if you make it, you're free - for a single round. Real nasty spell - Dispel magic is about the only counter.

People love necroing threads about necromancy, I suppose.

Yo dawg, I heard you like nec... ...

Sorry, I'll show myself out.

As other has said, the Swashbuckler is fine as is, even behind if compared to a number of other builds available from the core rulebook & advanced players guide. Now, if your DM is comparing the swashbuckler class to the rogue class, then yes, there is a discrepancy. But that's not the swashbuckler's fault - the rogue is weak and many of the classes in the advanced class guide step on the rogue to the point that it seems almost intentional. All this said, none of us on the boards are familiar with your gaming group, your DM, his campaign, or the power level of the other characters...

If I could give your DM one piece of advice, I'd recommend avoiding house rules without actual play experience with the specific rules to be modified - the Swashbuckler class in this instance. (Mind you, this comes from a guy who has going on 80 house rules himself.) With the exception of a few commonly agreed upon slip ups (divine protection, etc.), the hard cover core rulebooks provide relatively balanced material. The bigger cause for table variation than different rulebook sources is different levels of system mastery between players and in this case, house rules can only have so much of an impact.

What I've done in the past when I had concerns about party balance is record the damage numbers of each and every character by action and tally it up for the course of a few levels. At least then you and your DM can have a conversation based on data rather than just on theory. (Of course, this is a lot a work, but I'm a math guy, so it worked out for me.)

I'm considering adding a custom item to my campaign that will allow the bearer to research information about monsters; when enough information is gathered, the item allows the character to transform into a (lesser) version of the creature for a limited time.

The question I have is: apart from actually encountering a monster previously, how do I determine if the character even knows a monster exists? Everyone has heard of dragons and vampires and probably trolls, sure, but what about a banshee? Or an ooze? Or a bulette? "Monster Lore" DC 10+CR covers identifying a monster, but that presumes it's right in front of you. What about just knowing of the monster's existence?

If the player themselves doesn't know about such creatures, but the character should, is there a certain DC knowledge check where I could just give them a bunch of monsters that they have heard of? This seems like an edge case, which might be why I haven't been able to find anything about it in the rules or other posts.

Thanks as always for any help or guidance.

I am sure this has been discussed before, but I tried to do a search and turned up empty.

A new player will be joining my campaign this Friday. He will be playing a Ranger (level 4) with a Wolf animal companion. His 4th level feat is Boon Companion, which brings the wolf to 4 HD and allows it a stat increase. In order for the companion to know more tricks, understand a language, etc., the stat is going into Intelligence, which would bring it to 3.

Looking ahead, are there any sort of exemptions on the concept of Awakening for animal companions? The spell, as well as the Collar of True Awakening item, stipulate that an animal must have an intelligence less than 3, but it is extremely common for those with animal companions to give them a little bump in this area. Does that essentially exclude them forever from the potential of Awakening?

I think this is a case where the specifics of Awaken would trump the generalities of something else, but I want to make sure I haven't missed anything.

A question has come up regarding a game I run, which I've never considered before. There are dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of spells out there.

Do spellcasters "know" what every spell does, even those outside their magical sphere? Read Magic allows you to decipher a scroll, which would include what spell is contained on it. But apart from, say, the spell's name, what does it tell you about the spell itself? Does deciphering the scroll impart knowledge of whether it's divine or arcane? What classes can use it? Details about the spell's range, effects, and so on?

I didn't see anything about this in Spellcraft, Read Magic or Scrolls. They explain how you can determine what spells are on a scroll, but does anyone know where the Spellcraft check to understand what a spell actually does is?

I'm asking this question in expectation of an upcoming scenario in the next adventure of the campaign I'm running. There is likely to be a high speed horse chase, and I expect one of the PCs to leverage her Hold Person spell, which would effectively paralyze the opposing rider.

It's a given that any successfully paralyzed rider would fall from their horse; they have effectively 0 Dexterity and are incapable of making ride checks. The question is how much damage would they take? This is relevant because the person fleeing on horseback is likely to already be highly wounded.

A horse with the Run feat moving at a run is travelling about 30 miles per hour. A rider dismounted from their horse takes falling damage of at least 1d6 normally, but the environmental rules don't seem to cover higher speed falls from low height. Is there a resource somewhere or a houserule anyone can share?

I am considering incorporating an auction of unusual items for a now-deceased collector in an upcoming session. I thought about making one of these valuable rarities a gem containing the soul of an unknown being (though the creature's name is known, it means nothing to the party.)

This brought up the issue of what happens if the PCs get the gem in question and break it, releasing the creature. As per the spell, the creature (from another plane) can be required to perform a service, but how grudgingly would it do so? Would it have gratitude for being freed?

And this made me ask: do creatures whose souls are trapped inside such a gem have any awareness of what has happened to them? They do not appear to age or suffer any sort of harm while imprisoned (this one may have been in the gem for decades), but does that also place them into a mental stasis? Are they aware of who originally imprisoned them, or would they assume that whoever releases them are responsible for their situation?

I looked through a lot of threads and the FAQs on the site, but couldn't find anything to indicate if there is a ruling one way or another on this. The closest I can come is the Mirror of Life Trapping, in which victims are conscious and can speak to the controller of the Mirror, but it's obviously a different form of imprisonment.

I'm asking this on behalf of a witch for an upcoming game, whose cat familiar is almost certainly going to be taking (very temporary) refuge inside her handy haversack during touch-and-go combat (despite having a higher armor class than the witch herself.)

My question is, how far away is something that's inside a closed bag of holding or a haversack with the flaps down? Presumably it's in a pocket dimension, but is it also considered to be within 1 mile for Empathic Link and the benefit to Stealth? The witch could pull her cat out of the backpack as a move action, but while in the interdimensional space, does it could as being in "arm's reach" for Alertness?

Quick question - are the values for lifting overhead, lifting off ground and dragging/pulling part of a character's weight-encumbrance capacity, or are they separate pieces derived from those base values? The relevance here is that one of my PCs crafted a ring of Ant Haul and gave it to the 18 STR fighter so that the group no longer had to worry about the weight of waterskins (which I require, especially as they're going through Kingmaker now.)

That's all well and good, but does Ant Haul mean that the fighter--who could previously drag 1500 pounds--can now drag 4500 pounds, essentially easily pulling carts designed for horses if need be?

As the title asks, how often is stealth checked? Is it every time the character attempts to move?

Example: If one of my players (a dwarf, moving at 10' round under stealth) is attempting to sneak up from behind on a guard 45' away, are there four opposed checks made before the rogue gets into melee range, or is it just a single check to cover the distance between them? (If something changes, such as the appearance of another character or a change in terrain partway through, that would surely necessitate additional checks, but we're talking two individuals with no change in conditions for this example.)

I have a player who picked one of these up. She's not interested in using the "javelin"-sized compartment for javelins, but wants to stick more arrows in there. The logical, non-RAW part of me says that wouldn't work well because you'd have to reach way down into the quiver to get something as short as an arrow placed in a slot as large as a javelin, but the RAW part counters by pointing out that the item's description says that whatever the character wants from the quiver will always be quickly and readily available. What wins?

Unguent of Timelessness says it can be applied to anything that was once living (which would include bodies); it also says it can't be washed off but can be removed magically by dispel magic. If it's put on a deceased character and that character is brought back to life, what is the result? Is it dispelled in the process? Does it become inert while the character is living but resumes action if they die again? Or does it continue functioning, slowing their aging to one day per year and giving a +1 on saving throws?

This is not an actual issue for me yet, but a party I'm GM'ing does have a jar of the stuff and they could die, so...

We finished the first book of the Kingmaker AP on Saturday night at 3:30 in the morning after a near-five-hour attack on the Stag Lord's fort; the book overall was a blast and certainly the finale carried that through. I figured I would share the results here for posterity. It goes without saying that there are spoilers involved, so read on at your peril. This is a LONG read, my apologies.

The party consisted of four characters, all level 3: female human fighter, female half-elf ranger (archery focus), female human sorceror (Destined bloodline), and male dwarf rogue.

The party discovered the fort just shortly after entering its hex for exploration (they had by this point cleared every other notable hex and a few empty ones) and, upon seeing the fort and looking at their map, deduced this was likely the big confrontation they'd been awaiting. They decided to scout around on all four sides with the ranger and rogue, who kept far enough way to be out of sight but close enough to locate where the gate was and roughly where the towers were located, how many guards they could spot, etc. They did make a check and determined where the guards were "looking," discovering the open-hill area where the zombie ambush lay. Unfortunately, the zombie encounter never happened as after conferring, the party decided to send the sorceror (with high charisma, bluff and disguise skills) alone to the gate in straight view of the guards, making herself look a little more unsavory and beaten up through disguise and wearing one of the captured silver Stag Lord necklaces to help out.

Yup, the most sane plan devised involved sending the nearly-defenseless sorceror whose adjusted attack bonus was +1, up to the guards alone to bluff her way in while the ranger went around to scale the walls in secret, the rogue stayed in hiding right outside the front fort walls (about 100 feet away) in case something went wrong, and the fighter held back out of viewing range of the fort for an opportunity to do... something. Incredibly, the sorceror was able to bluff her way inside the building past the initial guards, telling them her group had been ambushed and scattered by adventurers while they slept. I let the guards slip that "Akiros won't be happy to hear about this," and the sorceror latched onto the name (it later came out that she thought "Akiros" was the Stag Lord's name.) She told the guards she didn't know how many of her group were still coming back, since they had been so scattered from the attack, which made the guards pause in closing up the gate. Feigning fatigue from her escape, she meandered off to a slightly isolated part in the northeast of the fort and used Ghost Sound to make the sound of the fighter outside the gate, calling to "Akiros" and saying she (the fighter) needed to speak with him, presumably to give the fighter more bandit cred. I might have fudged this by allowing Ghost Sound to be cast outside of the fort's walls, but I let it slide a little in appreciation of creative thinking.

The fighter took this as a cue, hastily put on the other Stag Lord necklace (the fighter carries around all the trinkets the party finds that they think might be quest-related), and rushed up to the gate (again in the normal sight range of the guards, bypassing the zombies.) This also meant that one of the bandits in the fort ran off to fetch Akiros.

In the meantime, the rogue rendezvoused with the ranger, filled her in on the situation, and they scaled the east outside wall of the fort. While the ranger (not acrobatic) took a little poke from the fortifications, neither was spotted by any of the bandits that I had determined would be around. They moved to hug the outside of the east inner wall, split up north and south and stayed put for the next development.

The fighter, nowhere near as charasmatic or good at bluffing, was still able to get the guards on her side with a lucky roll (despite a player slip indicating that "We came from west of the bandi--west of the old camp") and said she wasn't aware of anyone else who made it out. The guards closed the gate behind the two of them. The fighter asked the gate guard about the fort's defenses and the guard told her that everyone was in for the night, including all the lieutenants and, of course, the Stag Lord, and if the adventurers came looking for a fight, they'd regret it. When asked about the Stag Lord, the guard grumbled, "sleeping it off, like usual."

The fighter was planning to help the odds with a surprise attack on the front tower guard and actually getting ready to head up the tower under the guise of having something important to show him, when Akiros emerged from his location, asked what was going on and engaged the fighter and sorceror in conversation. The sorceror, already feeling a bit uneasy in the tiger's jaws, left all the talking to the fighter, which didn't work out so well. Akiros saw right through the bluff, especially since the fighter was wearing a Stag Lord necklace but said Akiros didn't recognize her because she was "new" (only experienced members of the Stag Lord's crew get the amulets, I decided) and then tried (unsuccessfully) to convince him that she had just decided to put on the necklace that one of the other bandits in their group dropped. He told her to follow him.

I had determined at this point since it was the middle of the night, several bandits would be asleep, including Dovan and Auchs (possibly even Akiros before they woke him up) and of course, per the AP, the Stag Lord was passed out from a binge. The fighter and sorceror hadn't caused a significant disturbance at the gate and no alarm had been sounded, so I figured those bandits asleep either didn't wake up or did, but saw that nothing was going on and rolled back over.

Sensing that something was going wrong with Akiros, the fighter managed to use bluff to send a pre-arranged hand signal to the sorceror for her to try knocking some folks out with sleep. The bandits that were awake in the common room weren't particularly observant and the sorceror was some distance away when she cast sleep on them. Both got lucky rolls and stayed awake. I don't think the books tell you how to adjucate how someone feels and reacts when they successfully save against an unseen mental compulsion, but I at least put them on their guard. Meanwhile the fighter went back with Akiros to just outside the Stag Lord's door where Akiros demanded to know who the fighter really was and called out the bluff. With (at least honorary) balls of steel, the fighter stuck to the story, which Akiros didn't believe at all. At this point, knowing that Akiros would throw in his lot with the party eventually anyway, I decided to have him come clean and offer to join them in cleaning out the fort. Although the player was suspicious, the fighter's sense motive check said she could trust him, so she went along with it.

They started with Auchs, who was asleep on his own and, when the fighter asked if anyone would come running if he yelled out, was told that he was "prone to fits" and it seemed unlikely. Although he was asleep clutching his club, noise wasn't a concern as between Akiros and the fighter making good rolls, he was cut down in a single round.

The two emerged from his room, went to the sorceror and told her to use sleep again. This time, the folks in the common room were wary and became hostile when she started casting the spell. Before they could fully react, one was out cold while the other yelled out about intruders and attacked. He was swiftly cut down, but Dovan and the other bandits awoke and a general melee ensued. Hearing that it was hitting the fan, the rogue, from his position at the north side of the east inner wall, shot at the gate guard and front tower guard, while the ranger started exchanging shots with bandits coming down the southern walkways from the other two watchtowers.

Dovan, while not in danger of destroying the party, was surprisingly difficult for them to put down, dying on the round right before the Stag Lord appeared outside his door. He (the Stag Lord, not Dovan) stepped to the 10' wide entryway and took a shot at the fighter with his bow, just missing thanks to her new +1 scale mail from the tatzylwyrm den. The sorceror recited a scroll of grease on the 10' area the Stag Lord was in and he failed his reflex save, falling prone. The rogue, who had by this point circled around to inside the fort, threw an alchemical fire into the area and I, having never seen a form of grease that doesn't burn, let it catch fire, doing damage to the Stag Lord. He got up on his next turn, tried to move beyond the area, and took a 5' step forward before (lacking any acrobatics skill) falling down again, still on fire. He fell a third time before he finally managed to get out of the grease location. This had the effect of basically turning the Stag Lord into WCW's 1993 debacle, the Shockmaster.

During the Stag Lord's last bout of falling down in shame, the fighter ran up to make a dramatic blow on him (taking a swipe from the Stag Lord's AoO attack in the process), only to roll a natural 1 followed by a natural 2. She jarred her hands from striking the ground with her sword (fumble deck card said that the fighter would do non-lethal damage for the next three rounds), which didn't please her at all. With all the other bandits cleaned up by this point, the party converged on the Stag Lord, with Akiros and the fighter attacking in melee, the rogue closing in to flank and sneak attack with his battle axe, the ranger shooting from a distance, and the sorceror utilizing the rapidly-depleting wand of magic missile picked up earlier in the campaign. The battle was suitably dramatic, and the Stag Lord eventually fell.

Afterwards, conversation with Akiros was then possible, where he related some of his story to the party. He wasn't sure what he was going to do at this point, but hearing that he had once been a paladin of Erastil, the fighter suggested he go to help Jhod Kavken at the Temple of Erastil, which he agreed he would check out and bid the team farewell, leaving the spoils of the fort to them, as he didn't want any more to do with it.

In the end, more time was spent just planning and getting into the Stag Lord's fort than actually fighting battles, which I think made for a more satisfying conclusion to the adventure. We're now in the process of levelling up the party to Level 4 and I've already been reviewing the next book so that it can be started soon.

We just finished the first book of Kingmaker yesterday. I've seen on several sites a 5000 GP reward for completed mapping of the northern Greenbelt and the defeat of the Stag Lord, but I can't find that anywhere in the actual AP itself. Am I missing something? It seems rather common of a thing to be someone's house rule...

We're at the post-adventure dividing the loot stage and an extra 5000 gp to go around would definitely make a difference in who ends up with what, so any help would be appreciated.

The description of dust of dryness indicates that you could basically suck up 100 gallons of water into a marble-esque sphere. Is the assumption that all the dust has to be used at once? If so, what would be the thoughts behind a character (even NPC) crafting smaller doses of this dust? It seems to me to be a very economical way to transport water in the absence of something like an endless decanter. At 850gp for 100 gallons, one would assume that enough dust to store water for a medium-creature's waterskin would cost 4.25gp... Still expensive, but considering that one could carry thousands of gallons of water across, say, a desert for only a couple pounds of storage, it sounds like it might be useful. Perhaps a derivative item that can only be used on non-living matter (removing the use against water elementals, for instance) would be marginally cheaper? Has this been considered before? Am I trying to over-fix something where there's already an easy solution?

Side disclosure: I'm currently GM'ing the Kingmaker AP (Book 1) and the characters weren't thrilled about carrying multiple waterskins, even when spending weeks at a time trekking through forests. We're slowing exploration so that they can use survival to forage every day as a result, but that's hardly elegant. Upon reading about dust of dryness, I thought about having them discover the remains of a body (following an encounter) with numerous small beads similar to that of the dust, each containing about half a gallon of water. Pop a bead, fill your waterskin. Not a permanent solution itself (there would only be a few dozen of these beads in the loot), but perhaps they could arrange to get more of these wondrous things from the city for a cost, providing a possible gold sink in the process. Looking forward to the future, with colonization and empire establishment as objectives, the easy transport of something as vital and heavy as water could be useful.

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere -- I searched and could only seem to find a thread regarding affects on bats and flying...

Could someone help me in determining some of the relevant stats for my witch's familiar if I wanted to make it a diminutive spider (which I believe would be the proper category for a creature just slightly smaller than the size of a human hand) instead of tiny as I think is listed in the APG? I'm not sure I'm even following the guidelines there for a tiny spider, since it says to refer to the Bestiary and that book only references a medium-sized spider as a template. I'm sure that being a smaller size, the spider would get a penalty to strength, bonus to AC, etc., but are skills affected? I thought about referring to Reduce Person, but figured that an instrinsic, permanent change might need more thought.

If there's a relevant section in the Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide or Ultimate Magic that I'm overlooking, please feel free to point me there and I can use it. Thanks.