Yesterday I purchased the Jungle of Despair Hydra mini figure from my local game store (Game Universe in Franklin, WI). When I opened the package, one of the single heads was missing. I believe it is one of the L-shaped single heads.
I am hoping you are able to ship me this piece based on my shipping address in my user profile. If you need any additional information, please let me know.
So I was never real keen on the Wasp's Nest location below the Longroads' Coffeehouse, so instead I put it below an abandoned warehouse in the docks area. My tie-in to get the PCs there was one of the PCs is from a lesser noble family whose family's business includes slavery - the patriarch is a Thrune sympathizer, so the PC son is a black sheep who sides with the rebellion. Nan was a contact to the PC and sent a letter that he needed help with a "delivery" (the Fushi sisters). That PC actually couldn't make the session we did the Wasp's Nest, so I had him missing and his manservant found the letter and delivered to the rest of the group. Everything worked out great as the group found Nan's corpse, battled Chough, negotiated with the remaining Fushi sisters who had their companion hostage, and recruited the Fushis to the rebellion.
During our next session, I am having the PC go to his father and propose his father invest in the abandoned warehouse and allow the son to run it to "get him into the family business". I am going to run as a verbal duel between the father and son that the son needs to win to convince the father of the investment. Longer term, I'm contemplating having the father "cook the books" of the fronted business which will lead to an inquisitor of Abadar (a sort tax auditor) confronting the PCs for loan fraud.
Just curious if anyone has modified the Negotiations with Nezera encounter? I'd like it to be a bit more dynamic than just Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimdate for each issue. I'm contemplating somehow incorporating the Verbal Duel rules from Ultimate Intrigue - I think using these in business negotiations would be very interesting. I'm also thinking of a mechanic to track progress differently - thoughts are on a Negotiation Point total that starts at a certain value for both sides and wins during the Verbal Duel reduce that point total downwards (think a dart game of 301 where competitors try to reduce their point total to zero the fastest). If Nereza's side reaches 0 first they get the concession listed in the summary for that issue. If the PCs reach 0 first, then the remaining point total for Nereza would determine their level of success. This would replace the 1NP/2NP/3NP concessions.
Any thoughts/suggestions on ways to flesh this out in more detail would be greatly appreciated.
More Vendalfek fun. I created the encounter at Clenchjaw's as a social combat challenge in the format given with the social combat cards - a 4 x 4 grid starting in one corner and having to get to the opposite corner. In took the form of a pub fight, so rather than track failures I had each PC take 1d8 non-lethal damage at the end of their turn and another 1d8 non-lethal if they failed a check. The party was victorious in the end, though three had been knocked out from excessive non-lethal damage. I allowed a Knowledge (arcana) check at the end to determine a faerie dragon was behind the recurrence of the nightly brawls.
The party discussed overnight and decided to write a message in draconic on a banner. "Greetings faerie dragon. We enjoyed your performance as well. Instead of the same audience every night, we may be able to offer venues of much much more fun for you. Contact us at Clenchjaw's. We will be here. Look for the brimmed hat."
They returned to Clenchjaw's the next morning and hung the banner. Within minutes, Vendalfek made his appearance. He addressed the brimmed hat wearer as Brimmed Hat. The name instantly stuck.
I am looking to get my Hell's Rebels campaign to 20th level by completion. I've planned add-ins at low/mid levels based on other threads posted (Infernal Inheritence, Out of Anarchy, No Response from Deepmar), but still falling behind pace at the higher levels of the campaign. I will probably have to do some encounter re-work to adjust CR at higher APL, but wondering if anyone had any ideas for additional resources to incorporate later in the adventure path to boost xp/character levels to hit 20 by the end? Was looking for maybe another mission for Kintargo hinterlands in Kintargo Contract (vol 5) or maybe additional encounters in the city in Breaking the Bones of Hell (vol 6).
A trick I learned from someone a couple years back who printed out maps for PFS scenarios to use at cons was to copy/extract the map into Excel. Then Insert Shape of a 1" square and expand the map until the inserted square shape fits into a square on the grid. Then you know the map grid squares are 1".
My dream AP would be a Shoanti kingdom building AP where the kingdom building rules are adapted to build a tribe. There would be rival members within the tribe vying for tribal dominance and also have orcs as a secondary antagonist.
Similar concept could also be cool in Land of the Linnorm Kings or Realm of the Mammoth Lords - again centered on tribal building.
Had some ideas for incorporating Occult Adventures into Hell's Rebels:
Luculla Gens - mesmerist (cult leader archetype)
Anyone else making changes to incorporate Occult Adventures into Hell's Rebels?
One of my favorite new ideas from Ultimate Intrigue was the Heist rules. I like the mechanics of the PCs each having separate roles to play in an overarching plot theme. One place where I think these rules could be used to great effect in Hell's Rebels is exploring the Kintargo Opera House during the Ruby Masquerade. Many movies have sequences (Ocean's Eleven and National Treasure immediately come to mind) where the team works together to infiltrate a location and do some covert things under the radar. Trying to get some ideas on how to set this up - probably need some distractions (Bluff checks), smooth-talking (Diplomacy), sneakiness (Stealth), lookouts (Perception/Sense Motive), lock-picking (Disable Device).
Haven't had much of a chance to actually build a heist from scratch yet, so not sure how all these checks would be laid out/come together to develop the various steps/goals for the heist. Would eventually lead to the discovery of Shensen and the Silver Ravens treasury.
Any ideas/help would be greatly appreciated.
I think to this point HR has been fantastically written and a total joy to run, but I think HR has a major weakness, which are the rebellion rules. I've only run the suggested trimmed down version of it, because I didn't to play "optimise this excel spreadsheet", but we still felt the massive bonuses the PCs got from the rebellion. I don't think the developers accounted for all the bonuses the PCs would get, so my advice to anyone wanting to run the latter parts of HR: Ramp up your encounters or ignore the Rebellion rules.
I have yet to start HR - not quite halfway through Shattered Star and want to make sure I spend a lot of prep time on HR to give it all the attention it deserves and really make it come alive for my players. My initial thoughts on the Rebellion have the same concerns that Gratz is voicing - it seems with all possible bonuses that the checks might become irrelevant. I know there are some limitations to number of teams and with some of the events where NPCs might be captured their bonuses go away until they are recovered. Still a lot of the static DCs of Organization checks mean they will become easier as the campaign progresses which seems a little counterintuitive. Seems like as things progress and the Silver Ravens become more of a threat, things should get more difficult. I'm thinking of maybe tying Notoriety score to DCs somehow or maybe allowing certain NPCs to apply their ability bonuses to checks the same way PCs in leadership roles add their ability scores.
Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
You might be able to tweak PFS scenario 6-22: Out of Anarchy to fit. It's about rescuing a Pathfinder from Pezzack, so if you instead gave the rebels a reason that this rescuee could be an ally, it might work.
I am making Olandil a halfling bard (demagogue) who is Laria's brother. He sends her a missive that he is in trouble which will jump start the scenario for my party. The party can save him and bring him to Kintargo where his demagogue skills to incite violence will be a nice addition to the rebellion.
For anyone with old Dungeon magazines, I am inserting a revamped Legerdemain from #39. I have fond memories of playing in this with my 2e halfling thief with a ring of invisibility. He popped visible on stage with his famous line "Forsooth yon maiden" and things spiraled out of control from there. I remember spending much of the combat trapped by the mechanical beast puppet.
Will be connecting House Sarini who will be pledging their patronage if Legerdemain's owner turns his plays into Theater of the Real. The PCs will end up saving the NPC who is to have been killed in the opening performance.
I know this is kind of an old thread, but I am just in the early stages of Shattered Star and I also looked at some of the Season 4 PFS scenarios and thought it would be a good tie-in to the Shattered Star AP. One major curveball I'm contemplating is having Sheila be a turncoat and have been the major villain at the head of the Lissala cult the entire time. I think it would make sense for her to send the PCs on the side quests of the PFS scenarios - by doing this she is attempting to send the shards into the hands of the Lissala cult agents. Her ultimate betrayal will occur at the Reforging ceremony. I'm giddy with how this will all play out.
If you think about combat abstractly vs on a tactical map, you are coordinating your movement with theirs, mirroring them. Should it matter whether they move "away" from you and really if they move to the side they have moved "away" from you. I think a good perspective would be dancers - when one moves the other follows to keep their steps in coordination.
The Step Up feat is somewhat ambiguous in its wording. It states "When a foe takes a 5ft step away from you". Does that have to be to an unadjacent square? The obvious use for Step Up is to close with casters or ranged attackers that move back to blast you, but the feat could also prove useful when fighting rogues to stay out of flanking if you were allowed to take a 5ft step when an adjacent for takes a 5ft step.
I plan to expand on the daemonic hints in Book 3 and incorporate the return of Choral the Conqueror to have an epic Apocalypse ending where the PCs stave off the end of the world fighting against minions of the Four Horsemen and draconic hordes of Choral. Looking to take the campaign to level 22-23. When PCs uproot The House on the Edge of Time to the Material Plane, it will become a planar portal that other factions will try to use to open gate to Outer Planes. PCs are going to be from Cheliax, so they may look to use House to open gate to Hell.
I also decided to use a dire bear to up the power level slightly. Another addition was 2 graven guardians of Erastil, powered down slightly from the Bestiary 3 version:
lesser graven guardian CR 3
Init +2; Senses darkvision 60ft, low-light vision; Perception +1
AC 15 (+3 natural, +2 dex); touch 12, flat-footed 13
Abilities: S:16(+3) D:15(+2) Co:-- I:-- W:12(+1) Ch:1(-5)
Faith Bound (Su): A graven guardian cannot attack any creature that openly wears or displays the holy or unholy symbol of the deity to which the graven guardian is dedicated unless that creature first attacks the graven guardian.
Magic Weapon (Su): A graven guardian that carries its deity's favored weapon treats that weapon as a +1 weapon as long as it is wielded by the guardian. If it is a ranged weapon, it gains the seeking weapon special ability, and generates new ammunition with each attack (this ammunition is destroyed whether or not it hits).
Lawful Weapon (Su): The graven guardian's weapons and slam attacks are treated as lawful-aligned. Its magic weapon deals +1d6 points of damage to chaotic targets.
Does anyone else have a problem with Cleanse being a "personal" spell rather than a "creature touched" spell? For a 5th level cleric spell it doesn't seem to have a lot of mileage when the cleric can only cast it on himself (other threads bring up the conundrum of the spell curing nausea but a cleric being unable to cast the spell while nauseated) and kind of goes against the typical cleric role of spells that help others. For a group using 3.5 material as well, Panacea is a much better option - a level lower with basically the same effects but able to cast on others. Also, comparing Cleanse to Heal (1 level higher) - Heal cures pretty much all the same effects, heals a great deal more hp, and is a "creature touched" spell. Our group has house-ruled that Cleanse is a "creature touched" spell and we use this spell in place of Panacea, which in 3.5 seemed overpowered for a 4th lvl spell. Just wondering what others thoughts were as I couldn't find any sort of errata on the spell on the messageboards.
This year was my first attempt at a submission for the RPG Superstar contest - any feedback/criticism is appreciated to help me start preparing for next year:
The creation of this item dates far back to the cyclopean empires of ancient Golarion; but the height of their popularity came during the rule of the Whispering Tyrant, who himself wore a much more powerful version of the gloves that gave him the swift touch ability at will along with several other potent powers. Most arcane casters serving the Whispering Tyrant possessed these items, which can still be found today throughout Ustalav in ancient ruins, haunted crypts, and battlefield sites.
Sara Marie wrote:
I would like to cancel my subscription, and I will pick it back up with the next product after the beginner box set. Thanks!
I do not have interest in receiving the Pathfinder Beginner Box. What is the best way to avoid receiving that item with a Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscription? Can a hold be put on the subscription to skip the Beginner Box or would I need to cancel the subscription then renew it for the Bestiary 3?
captain yesterday wrote:
i would like a pirate theme adventure path, with ships and everything
I would also love a pirate-themed AP - I've actually been contemplating a campaign using some of the Freeport stuff and pirate adventure from Dungeon #16 (Vesicant) set in the Shackles. Rules for ship-to-ship combat would be awesome as well as travel through the Eye of Abendego. With all the success of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise (#4 upcoming in May), it seems like a slam dunk (though I also know that Paizo has tried to steer away from cliched and overdone themes).
Seems there are many different interpretations here. Here is what I see from the ability's description - before remove curse is cast, the afflicted takes 1d6 Con and 1d6 Cha on a failed save so I attribute that to the "curse" aspect. Once remove curse has been cast, the afflicted still does not benefit from natural healing and magical healing must succeed on a caster level check, so I attribute that to the "disease" aspect. It does seem to make more sense to have it the other way around - the "curse" prevents healing while the "disease" causes ability damage. FWIW - mummy rot appears under the Curse section of the Core Rulebook on p. 557 though even there it shows as both a curse and disease. It is clear there is no consensus on the issue, so at the end of the day it will be a DM judgment call. Thanks again everyone for your input.
Looking for a semi-official ruling from the Paizo staff on some rules ambiguity resulting from a mummy's mummy rot vs. a paldin's divine health as it has come up in our campaign.
As the Core Rulebook states, at 3rd lvl a paladin becomes immune to all diseases, including magical and supernatural diseases. As the Bestiary states, mummy rot is both a curse and a disease. The 3.5 paladin entry explicitly included mummy rot amongst the magical diseases that paladins were immune to, but the Pathfinder Core Rulebook does not make this distinction and the addition of the curse aspect to mummy rot is a change from 3.5 to Pathfinder for the monster's entry. Discussion in another thread suggests breaking the ability into its two component parts - having a paladin affected by the curse aspect (taking 1d6 Con and Cha on a failed save - save frequency 1/day) while immune to the disease aspect (no natural healing and a caster level check required for magical healing). That seems like a good compromise and is what I'm leaning towards, but want to make the correct ruling according to the intentions of the RAW (rules as written). Any help/guidance here is greatly appreciated.
This is an improvement over 3.5 where it required a Concentration check (which most casters would smartly max at lvl+3 ranks) at DC 15+spell lvl. It did not take long before this was basically an automatic, especially with Combat Casting adding +4 to the check.
There needs to be some risk involved in casting while threatened and I think the Pathfinder rules fixed the issue while still granting a good chance of success for the caster.
There is an implied cost with readying an action - if the situation does not develop then you lose that action for the round. So, as one poster pointed out the caster could simply move 30' before casting the spell, putting himself outside of the range of the fighter. I would also allow the caster to notice the fighter focusing on him in which case the caster could cast defensively.
This is definitely a thought-provoking subject. In my opinion, casting in combat carries very little consequence. Casters can often shield themselves by simply taking a 5' step. The casting defensively check is pretty much a joke by mid levels. I would like to see more opportunities for spell interruption, back to the days of 1e/2e where casters very seldom cast spells in combat since all it took was a hit prior to their spot in the initiative order to ruin a spell. The situation in the OP does have an issue though - if the spell being cast is a standard action and the fighter uses a move action to approach the caster (and move/standard actions are assumed to take the same amount of time) does the spell complete before the fighter even gets to the caster? I would probably house rule that the two combatants roll an opposed initiative check (or just an opposed Dex check) to see which action gets off a split-second before the other (fighter cleaves caster in two just before he gets out the final syllable or caster completes spell just as fighter gets to him).
Pax Veritas wrote:
You are truly on point with your assessment of the current state of DMing. I would like to take this a step further however, and make the same argument of the player. Being a purveyor of D&D since 1st edition (one of my original group members had the PHB w/ the thieves carving the jeweled eye from the demon statue), my early gaming decisions were made in a manner that helped bring my mental view of my PC into clearer focus and drive character development rather than character building. In my experience with 3.0 and 3.5, this is really not a driving factor anymore. Much character building discussion now revolves around min/maxing and character optimization which has turned the D&D game into one of pure mathematics. I think the OP does have a valid point regarding the breakdown of the game due to the 1d20+X issue but I also agree with you that the mechanical flaws of the game would not be as evident if both the DM and players made more decisions based on the campaign storyline and character development rather than maxing skill ranks, attack bonus, or AC.
Curses are meant to be broken (or started anew). The PCs will not know Eran is the heir to the throne right away - I will probably have Zellara reveal this at a later date, with her informing the PCs initially that he is important but not releasing the details of that importance. By the time the PCs do find this out (when they rescue Neolandus in Escape from Old Korvosa), Ileosa has grown powerful and entrenched herself in the ruling seat, so even if the PCs brought forth this information they would not have the might to install Eran on the throne. They must continue along the AP to learn about the Fangs of Kazavon and recover Serithtial to be able to face Ileosa in the final installment. All of this just adds an extra twist to the plotline of the AP.
What will you do with Eran once he is rescued by the PCs? Why would the Queen be more interested in Sabor than in Eran?
Ileosa still needs a scapegoat for the King's death, so that explains her continued interest in Sabor. I think my angle on Eran is that the Red Mantis did not get the information from Zellara, so they do not know that the illegitimate heir exists. Ileosa came across Zellara's name in Neolandus' journals - the excerpt just said "she has a secret which could destroy the monarchy." Ileosa had her assassinated to hide this secret, not knowing the secret was an illegitimate heir who still lives. I will probably tie Eran in with the Trinia/Vencarlo angle somehow so he escapes the city with Trinia. Not sure how I'm going to develop to the PCs that Eran is the rightful heir to the throne - probably through Zellara. Just have her be cryptic that he is important somehow and must be kept alive.
I was somewhat let down with the character connection in Edge of Anarchy, so I've been thinking about a different approach. I think I have one that will be cool:
The characters happen upon a living Zellara being accosted by Red Mantis assassins. As the PCs intervene, one of the assassins lands a death blow and the two assassins escape. Zellara imparts the PCs with information using her dying breaths - "Gaedren Lamm, Old Fishery, save my son Eran". Some detective work on the PCs part can lead them to finding the Old Fishery. Eran remains one of Lamm's Lambs - a nine year old boy. In my campaign, I am planning to make Zellara one of Eodred's past lovers and have Eran be his illegimate son (on consequently heir to the throne of Korvosa). This will make for a very interesting twist in the campaign as Neolandus will have this knowledge. The PCs will not only need to de-throne Ileosa, but also keep the heir alive to take his rightful place upon the throne at the conclusion of the campaign.
I really don't think the good save/bad save discrepency is much of an issue. There are feats that can be taken and applied to any saving throw type (Lightning Reflexes, Iron Will, and Great Fort) to close the gap by +2. What I've experienced that gets back to the 'spellcasters are overpowered' argument is with all the new splatbooks the number of 1)swift/immediate spells and 2)spells bypassing SR and/or not allowing saves both increase greatly. And with my group of admitted min/maxers much of their spell selection is often based on such criteria.
One addition to grapple that has a basis in cinema is to allow others an attack on the grappling creature to help release an ally from the grapple. Many fantasy movies show creatures like the kraken wrapping its tentacles around victims only to be injured and release its hold. This really wouldn't change the grapple rules as they stand, but would add an additional option for when the weakling wizard/sorcerer is in the embrace of a grey render.
Helping a friend in a grapple requires a standard action which grants one attack against the grappling creature. If successful, the attack deals normal damage and forces the grappling creature to immediately make a grapple check against the CMB of the grappled creature + 1/2 the damage dealt by the attack (this DC mechanic may need to be adjusted - just taking a WAG (wild a$$ guess) as full damage seems excessive).
Epic Meepo wrote:
My suggestion given further back in the thread does give fighters an advantage by allowing extra attacks as part of a STANDARD action and having these extra attacks be at full base atk mod. That way the fighter isn't nerfed when he has to move across the battlefield and it makes winning initiative meaningful (a prior post gives the example of a fighter winning init, charging and attacking once while the enemy he charged gets a full attack on his init against the fighter who because of charging also has an AC penalty).
I really don't see iterative attacks as core 3.5 - the underlying core rule is really Base Atk Bonus, which would not change. I remember picking up the 3.0 PHB and paging through the first time. My first reaction was "Hey, clerics and wizards get additional attacks at higher levels - that doesn't seem right". Iterative attacks still don't make sense to me - fighters don't gain spellcasting or even the ability to use scrolls/wands; why give other classes an ability that was exclusive to fighters in earlier (1e/2e) editions?
What about removal of iterative attacks is non-3.5 and what is the fascination with iterative attacks? To me, they are nearly a complete waste - each iterative attack basically means a -25% chance on your ability to hit. Basically at high levels only the first attack or two are going to hit in most instances - why have this rule in that causes the rolling of meaningless dice? Granting extra attacks at full base atk makes more sense, but this can't just replace the iterative attack rules because then it tips the balance too far in the opposite direction. A return to something akin to the 1e/2e rules where specialized fighters were the only ones who gained extra attacks makes sense. Other classes really aren't missing out that much - wizards and sorcerers hardly make use of iterative attacks and the change makes fighters better in battle than clerics which might make the fighter class viable again (current rules allow for a cleric build that can outshine a fighter in battle pretty easily plus have the added capability of spellcasting). Feats grant a good solution to the issue of extra attacks - fighters main boon is the number of feats they get. Now they can apply some of these feats to actually make themselves better in combat than other classes.
Samuel Weiss wrote:
I like this idea as well as it would allow other party members to help get allies out of a grapple and it would add to the cinematics of the battle (barbarian clubs the gray render which then drops the wizard and turns menacingly on the barbarian). I'm thinking damaging a grappling creature forces a grapple check at DC 10+damage dealt or the grappling creature must release the enemy creature it is grappling.
This thread really has gotten me to thinking about the whole Base Attack mod and iterative attacks. One thing I'm contemplating in my campaign is to wipe out iterative attacks - with a standard action you may make a single attack. I would also make a change to full attack where when making a full attack you would gain an additional attack at your full base attack bonus. This would make full attack meaningful at low levels (right now it is not very meaningful because until a character hits at least 6th lvl they only get one attack (unless you take two-weapon fighting, Manyshot feat, or some other feat that gives you an extra attack of some sort)). Finally, I would create a feat(s) that allow for extra attacks with a standard or full attack action. The prereq would be based on Base Atk Mod so fighter-type classes would qualify most easily (probably +8 for Extra Attack feat and +16 for Improved Extra Attack). Using this methodolgy, a 16th lvl fighter with both feats would gain 3 attacks at full atk mod w/ a standard action and 4 attacks w/ a full atk action. I believe this would make straight fighter-types more capable of holding their own in higher level play. Since all attacks gain full atk mod, I would probably return Power Attack to 3.0 version with a 1 for 1 exchange on to-hit & damage.