Michael Cummings's page

Tempest_Knight wrote:

Is the sanctioning correct in granting;

"0 Reputation that can be assigned to any faction."

Yes. (I mean we could remove the "can be assigned to any faction" but the material facts are correct)

Is there a reason why this is granting 0 Reputation? Adventure Path and Module chronicle sheets grant the normal amount of Reputation for Society credit (12 Reputation per chronicle). Shouldn't the One-Shot grant 4 Reputation along with the 4 XP?

I've now had another issue with this mini - one of the double-heads with L-shaped peg, the peg broke off. I was able to remove the peg from the mini's body, but will also need a double-head with L-shaped peg sent along with the missing single head.

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.

Michael Cummings

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.

Michael Cummings

Please cancel both my Adventure Path and Campaign Setting subscriptions.

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.

Please cancel all of my current subscriptions: Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.

Thank you!!

Had some ideas for incorporating Occult Adventures into Hell's Rebels:

Luculla Gens - mesmerist (cult leader archetype)
Tiarise Izoni - psychic (formless adept archetype)
Shensen - silver balladeer bard archetype - I believe the abilities would work with Dawnflower Dervish, I don't see any overlapping ability exchanges

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.

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 have made Nox a tyrant antipaladin with Mephiry her fiendish servant. Since hell hounds normally aren't available for summon monster III, I applied the young template - also makes it not such a killer encounter at the protest if Mephiry does get involved.

Accountant by trade, so Abadar

Name: Shalladin
Race: aasimar
Classes/levels: Warpriest 5 of Gorum
Adventure: 1.5 Dawn of the Scarlet Son (inset module between parts 1 & 2)
Location: outside abandoned shrine
Catalyst: only good PC in the party (CG alignment) - half-fiend smite good ability
The Gory Details: The party had captured Zadendi in a modified skill challenge who then led them back to the Saerenrae shrine. Scarlet Son opened the battle with an unholy blight which pinpointed the aasimar as the only good aligned target (failed his save and was sickened). Scarlet Son then targeted that PC with smite good ability. Battle lasted 10 rds - party barbarian was only one who could get past DR (no magic weapons in the party) and he rolled 2 nat 1's in the battle.

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.

Please cancel my Pathfinder Roleplaying Game subscription.

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
XP 800
N medium construct

Init +2; Senses darkvision 60ft, low-light vision; Perception +1

Defense

AC 15 (+3 natural, +2 dex); touch 12, flat-footed 13
hp 50 (4d10+20), DR 5/slashing
Fort +1 Ref +3 Will +2
Immune: construct traits
Weaknesses: faith bound, vulnerable to fire

Offense

Sp 40ft
Melee: slam (atk +7 dmg 1d6+4 crit 20/x2)
Ranged: +1 seeking longbow (atk +7 dmg 1d8+1 plus 1d6 vs chaotic incr 100ft crit 20/x3)
SA: magic weapon, lawful weapon
Spell-like Abilities (CL 3rd; concentration +4)
3/day - entangle (DC 12)

Statistics

Abilities: S:16(+3) D:15(+2) Co:-- I:-- W:12(+1) Ch:1(-5)
Base Atk +4; CMB +7; CMD 19
SQ: guardian domains (Law, Plant)

Special Abilities

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.

Please cancel my Pathfinder Campaign Setting and Pathfinder Player Companion subscriptions.

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:

Swifttouch Gloves
Aura faint necromancy; CL 3rd
Slot hands; Price 7,200 gp; Weight –

Description
These fingerless black leather gloves can most often be found adorning the hands of foul necromancers. Three times per day, they allow the wearer to make a touch attack as a swift action. Their most common application is to allow a caster who is holding the charge on a touch spell cast in a previous round to release the spell in a following round with a swift action rather than a standard action. They do not alter the casting time of the original spell. The gloves can also be used by a creature with a natural touch attack (lich’s paralyzing touch) or a touch attack special ability (necromancer’s grave touch ability).

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.

Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, spectral hand; Cost 3,600 gp

Please cancel my Pathfinder Campaign Setting subscription.

I would like to cancel my Pathfinder RPG subscription to avoid the Pathfinder Beginning Box set. I will re-subscribe with the Bestiary 3.

Unfortunately there is no way to remove a subscription item with out canceling the subscription. Many of our subscribers who feel the Beginner Box is for them, are planning on giving it as a gift to new players they know; nieces and nephews interested in gaming or using it as a tool for teaching friends who are new to the game. There are also new adventures and lots of many new goodies in the box, but if you would like to cancel and restart after the Beginner Box that is not a problem.

Just let us know what you would like to do.

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?

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.

Please cancel my Adventure Path and Companion subscriptions. The material is top-notch, but most is not being used right now so it is hard to justify purchasing more.

Going back to the drawing board on the whole Readied Action issue, I have two thoughts.

1) Readying an action ought to cost something. Right now, the 'costs' we have are swift, move and standard actions.

2) To me, it would seem more straight forward and easier to determine what's legal and what isn't if the cost for readying an action were separate from the action itself. I think we can all see that the current "it's a standard action that includes another standard action ... or maybe it isn't" is too confusing.

So, give readying an action a cost like any other action - I lean towards swift or move, but could handle standard - and it becomes just another part of the 'action economy' (Quandry's term from another thread, I believe).

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).

IMHO, the "True Problem" is a social/inter-personal/communal issue that 1) stemmed from corporate greed in publishing all rules for players to rule lawyer and judge (in an obvious attempt to make everyone the type of consumer that would buy the 6x-as-much that the DM was buying and 2) the result of years of manipulative "forgetting" about the art of dungeonmastering (and the lack of senior DMs teaching younger ones this art). DMing has become characatured as a series of "handwaives" and "rule-breaks" instead of what it is/what it was designed to be.

Restore the skill of DMing/GMing and you will have addressed the "True Problem" for a great GM can make any system work incredibly, more miraculously than ever imagined.

Just my two cents.... I return you now to your regularly scheduled thread, and will...

Pax,

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.

They begin shipping today.

My order shows "pending" - come on, come on, flip the switch on the PDFs already so I can get me some Crown of Fangs goodness.

Interesting but if the king has an illegimate son, the curse didn't work, so?

If the king is still alive, what about the curse? What about the Queen and her way to rule the city?
I don't thnik that you can use it with the same name of the campaign, but, you can do what you want. It's an interesting point of view.

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.

I have to give some props to Five Finger Death Punch. After previewing the album on itunes, I immediately purchased the entire album. Good anger but still musical - somewhat reminiscient of Pantera.

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).

Smurf my smurf

Peruhain of Brithondy wrote:

If you want dynamic combat, set up battlefields (and enemy forces) conducive to it. Fighters won't stand in one spot to get their full attack if their enemies are swooping out of the air or riding by launching arrows from horse/griffon/worg-back. Nor will they if the enemy outflanks them and gets to the party spellcaster.

The problem isn't that fighters don't have incentives to engage in dynamic combat. The problem is that fighters suck when engaging in dynamic combat. Fighters rely on their iterative attacks to be effective, and the minute they have to start moving around the battlefield, they lose their biggest advantage. The ability to hit a single opponent once per round for 20 or 30 points of damage is worthless at higher levels.

Incidentally, I agree with you that the removal of iterative attacks is not the answer. (And if I'm not mistaken, Jason Bulmahn indicated earlier in this thread that the removal of iterative attacks is not an option.) However, I do think something should be done to allow higher-level fighter-types to make more than one attack per round without having to stand in place to do it.

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?

Keep Iterative Attacks.

What is with the posts to get rid of Iterative attacks and change the magic system? You might as well go 4e if you're gonna do that. The thing that has attractied me to Pathfinder is the fact that ti is still 3.5 with some updates. Changing magic and Iterative attacks makes Pathfinder in-compatable with 3.5.

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.

Slime wrote:

An option to consider in escaping a grapple would be to consider damage inflicted on the grappler.

It's both realistic (self-defence teaches that as the first way to try and get out of someone's grip) and cinematographic (hit the beast hard enough and it let's go of the damsel while yelling in pain) that a creature grappling someone could drop or let go of his victim if inflicted enough damage (possibly 10+CMB h.p. or more in a single attack).

Low intelligence creatures could get a penalty (ex.: double the int. score penalty). This option could also help some Wizards since they could use their 1st level damaging supernatural Ability (no casting or AoO) to try that option but damage is still on the low side but with the int. penalty option it could work out nice.

Just a thought.

Sounds reasonable.

How about just simply adding damage to the next escape attempt?
Or using the damage as a DC for the next grapple if it is greater than the usual CMB?

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.