Search Posts
One of my players is running a cleric, and she wants to worship Freya, who, as far as I know, is not statted up for Pathfinder. I used the Frog God Games version as a template, but I would like to give her Obediences and Boons like the regular deities of Golarion. Any ideas? Based on the FGG version of her, her symbol (and animal) is the Falcon. In addition to the falcon, she also favors the stag and the winter wolf. Her color is white. Her worshippers are all female. Her weapons of choice are longsword and longbow. Her domains are Animal, Good, Healing and War. Her main descriptor is Goddess of Love and Fertility. She also commands the Valkyries. I had thought about perhaps having four different obediences, one for each of her Domains, with each conferring a different Boon, but limited to only one obedience and boon per day. We're also working with mass combat rules, with the party leading an army (we're running the Wrath of the Righteous adventure path), so I'm also toying with the idea of adding an obedience that takes a full day to perform, but which adds the Boon to the army rather than just to the cleric or the party. Any thoughts or ideas?
With the Automatic Bonus Progression variant, items don't have inherent bonuses, they are given to the character instead, over time. But how does this effect items like a holy avenger, where the bonuses differ according to its use or who is wielding it? Typically a holy avenger is a +2 cold iron longsword in the hands of a non-paladin, but becomes +5 in a paladin's hands. Is that entire aspect lost? Or is only the +2 lost, and the paladin's weapon attunement considered +3 higher when wielding a holy avenger?
Let me start by saying that I am only looking for interpretations of the rules here (RAW or RAI are both okay), not for advice on whether it would be reasonable to make an exception to the rules. Our party has a rogue knife-master who was recently killed. The party didn't have enough gold to pop for a raise dead, so they opted instead for a reincarnation. For the fun of it, we used an alternate reincarnation table, and he came back as a ratfolk, which are small creatures (he was originally human). His weaponry included two masterwork daggers, medium size. According to the rules, he should take a -2 penalty to attack with them, and they would be treated as 1-handed weapons, not light weapons, but would still do the standard 1d4 damage for a medium dagger. Now here is the crux. As a knife master, his sneak attack uses d8 instead of d6 for damage when using "daggers or dagger-like weapons," but only d4 when using any other kind. All of the listed weapons that allow the d8 are light weapons. However, since he now has to treat those daggers as 1-handed weapons (as they are more unwieldy in his smaller hands), do they still count as "daggers or dagger-like weapons" for the purpose of determining die type damage for sneak attack? Again, while I don't think it would be unreasonable to allow them to still count (or meet him in the middle and let them do d6, because they're still daggers, but he can't finesse them quite as well), I am mostly interested in seeing rules interpretations. This is simply for debate, because he has a very easy out - there is a nearby armory they discovered where he can easily swap out for a pair of normal daggers of small size, and I'm going to allow him to simply break down the masterwork medium daggers for materials in lieu of the cost requirement for the bard's masterwork transformation spell. So solving the problem without having to really McGuyver the rules is not an issue.
According to the rules, trained-only skills cannot be used for anything with a DC higher than 10 if you don't have ranks in it. Since the DC to Aid Another is 10, does this mean that a character can use the Aid Another action to aid a Knowledge skill check even if they don't have ranks in that particular Knowledge skill? Or does the particular nature of trained-only skills make them an exception to the Aid Another DC rule?
I'm thinking about running a homebrew campaign that borrows some themes and elements from Skyrim. For the most part, I don't think this will be difficult, as most of the races have Pathfinder equivalents (Ulfen for the Nords, etc.), and I'm not trying to recreate the whole thing, so setting it in the Realms of the Mammoth Lords or the Worldwound should not be a problem. But apart from simply borrowing some storylines and quest ideas, I also wanted to try to incorporate some of the Dragonborn concepts, like Shouts and such. Obviously, I'd need to tweak some things so we don't have low level parties fighting dragons every outing. And I'd need to find a way to spread the shouts around, rather than having only one person benefit from them. Has anybody tried this before? And do any of you have some ideas on how to make this work like a party of Dragonborns, rather than just one, without it seeming rediculously overpowered? Or do you think making this work will be a pipe dream?
We're running the Skulls & Shackles AP, and some of the characters have opted to wear eye patches, including the Pirate's Eye Patch, and the Mariner's Eye Patch (Necromancer Games). The question is, if the character's do not have any actual eye injuries, should they take a hit to their perception while wearing the eye patches, if the item description does not state that perception is somehow aided by the items?
In a recent game, we encountered a gug savant, which has spike stones as a once daily spell-like ability. It managed to cover the entire cave floor in spike stones. According to the spell description:
Now, the Nimble Moves and Acrobatic Movement feats allow the character to move through difficult terrain without impediment for a limited distance, including making 5-foot steps. Note, that by the spell description, the environment acts mechanically like difficult terrain in its movement restrictions, but is not specifically denoted as difficult terrain. And it does automatic damage when moving through it. So the question is, should the Nimble Moves and Acrobatic Movement feats allow movement through the area of spike stones without damage or impediment (at least for the 20' the two feats together allow)?
The Core Rulebook states that the DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for every prerequisite that the creater does not meet. It also states that wands or other spellcasters are allowed to be used in place of spellcasting prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state that this allowance forgives the DC increase, and it could be read either way. What is the general consensus on how that should be interpreted? Should involving another spellcaster (or a wand) negate the +5 to the DC? I've always personally taken the "too many cooks spoil the broth" approach to interpreting the increased DC rule, meaning that unmet prerequisites don't necessarily meet the prerequisites aren't met, just that the item crafter has to go to other sources to get them met (you just don't have to roleplay it out), and with each new pair of hands involved in the process, the better the chance that something will go wrong. If that is a correct interpretation, then involving another spellcaster would still increase the DC, although using a wand might not (if it is the crafter using the wand).
One of my gaming groups has implemented the following rules, and I want to see what people think of them. My co-DM Ed came up with this one: Sneak Attack only applies to the first attack each round, not to all iterative attacks. The rationale is that precision-based damage requires study and patience to find just that right kink in the armor or that momentarily exposed vital spot. With your opponent writhing and bobbing and weaving, those openings are going to close up very quickly, especially once you've hit them. I like the idea, and I've toyed with the idea of allowing two attacks with sneak attack damage in a round, if the character is using Two-Weapon Fighting and wielding 2 light one-handed weapons, such as daggers, because they could both strike the same opening simultaneously. I came up with this one: When a character who has Evasion or Improved Evasion is in difficult terrain (and lacks feats or spell effects allowing them to ignore it) or is in a situation where their movement is otherwise hindered, such as grappled, then they are treated as if their Evasion is one step lower - Improved Evasion becomes regular Evasion, and regular Evasion is disqualified. Part of the reason for these changes was to add a little more realism and sensibility to the game, and part of it was to nerf the rogue just a bit, because one thing all the DMs in my games seem to share in common is that we all disagree with the trend in 3rd Edition and later incarnations to turn the rogue into a fighter lite.
We're having a bit of a kerfuffle about the various detect spells, regarding whether or not a caster can cast these spells on other party members, such that they can detect (whatever). Looking through the various detect spells, none of them say Target: Creature Touched, like most spells that can be cast on others; but neither do they say Range: Personal, like most spells that are limited only to the caster. I think it has generally been conventional wisdom that the detect spells are self only, but is this actually RAI, despite not being RAW?
So I've got a player running a monk/ranger character who is wanting to buy several skill boost items and tools, most of which aren't explicitly listed in the equipment lists. Just wanting to get some ideas how much these things should cost, should only masterwork quality items confer skill bonuses, and so on. Specifically, Scouts garb - +2 bonus to Stealth
Would it be unfair to require the Masterwork Almanac to cost 3 times the normal masterwork price if it is going to confer the bonus to 3 skills, and probably weigh a lot more, due to the amount of comprehensive information it would have to contain to confer all three bonuses?
I am in a gaming group in which we alternate DMs - I run one week, the other DM runs the next week, and so on. In my game, two of the players are playing Magi (including the other DM), and in his game, I am playing a Magus. I reminded both players during the last game that they are allowed to use Spell Combat and Spellstrike in concert with each other, essentially getting a weapon attack with a channeled spell, and an offhand spell attack, each round, if they don't mind the quick spell burn. Turns out, they had both been interpreting the rules as if they could only do one or the other in any given round, not both. So the other DM is thinking about house-ruling that the magus cannot use Spell Combat and Spellstrike in the same round. First, I want to make sure I am interpreting the RAW correctly. My interpretation is that a magus of at least 2nd level can make two attacks in each round, providing that he is in Full Attack mode, one of which is a Spellstrike (weapon damage, plus spell effect), and one of which is Spell Combat (spell effect only, must have one hand free). The other DM believes that this is unbalancing, so I need some arguments to show how it is not. I already pointed out that most of the spells will require defensive casting or a spell-burn like Warding Weapon, each attack suffers the same -2 penalty, and that the magus burns through spells much more quickly than a traditional spell caster, thus the concerted use of both abilities is not well-advised in situations where the party is likely to have several encounters in a day, such as a dungeon crawl. Does anyone have any other good arguments for why Spellstrike and Spell Combat in concert is not an unbalancing feature?
Here is the premise I'm working on. Reading up on the history of the dragon wars between Apsu and his son Dahak, although the primary battles were between these two, it also mentions that Dahak had some siblings, so I thought it might be interesting to create a history wherein Dahak fought one of his siblings and somehow managed to have her soul rent from her body, with the soul cast to the material plane and the body later stolen away for protection to Pharasma's boneyard (or some equally difficult to find location). So here's the gist - the end goal is to reunite the sundered soul, which is walking Golarion in a human form, with the body, ultimately resurrecting the rended daughter of Apsu. So right now, the party is 7th level, almost 8th. And they happen across a dirty, barefoot little girl of about five years of age toting a threadbare teddy bear and accompanied by a pet jerboa. She has no memory of where she came from, though she remembers walking down from the Mindspin Mountains. She doesn't remember her parents' names. She's basically a lost waif, with no memory of her divine and draconic heritage. My stumbling block is how do I stat up what is essentially the ghost or spirit of a sundered dragon that is able to manifest a solid physical form but doesn't know who or what it is and believes itself to be a human child? Or maybe not a ghost at all, maybe she's the dragon soul reincarnated into a real human child. How do I stat that up so that it is neither too strong nor too weak for the party it will be accompanying, but also not too obvious exactly what she is (though it will be fairly easy to tell that she's something more than meets the eye). Ghost with NPC levels? Statistically human with sorceror or witch levels? Statistically human with NPC levels, but with some spell-like abilities? Other possibilities? I don't want to give her fully realized draconic abilities, since she's only half herself and doesn't even remember that half. But at the same time, I don't want her to be just a regular five-year-old kid that would be seriously outmatched if she travels with a mid-to-high level party, so that the party is always having to stash her away when combat ensues, or leave her in town so that a major plot element isn't present as often as it should be. So ... ideas?
I am looking for some feedback on different ways that some DMs run their merchants. Personally, I've been having my merchants sell at book prices, but buy at 50% (adjusted up or down 10% for each step the merchant's attitude is made from "indifferent.") I usually also give book value when a character trades rather than sells for gold. I've heard of some DMs merchants buying for as low as 30% and selling for as high as 150%. How do some of you guys do it?
I've got a player who is wanting to play a Lizardfolk character in a new adventure path that starts everyone at 1st level. There are two sections of applicable rules about playing this race as a pc - Monsters as PC's (pp. 313-314, Bestiary) and Humanoid (p. 308, Bestiary). There are a couple things that I'm not quite sure how to interpret, which I've detailed below. Per Monsters as PCs - "Treat the monster's CR as its total class levels, and allow the characters [monsters] to multiclass into the core classes. Do not advance such monsters by adding hit dice. Monster PCs should only advance through classes." Question: the word "advance" is what is stumping me. Are they meaning that the initial build should not have any racial hit die, but that instead it should have hit die equal to its CR (since its CR is considered its total class levels)? Or do they mean that the initial build should follow the standard creature entry wrt hit die and BAB, but that advancement beyond that point should only be through classes? A lizardfolk is CR 1, but 2 hit die, hence the confusion. This will affect whether the lizardfolk should start as a non-classed character with 2 hit die, thus having to wait for 2nd level before it can opt into rogue, or whether it can start play as a rogue with only 1 hit die, which are based on the rogue and not on the race (as per the Humanoid entry, humanoids with more than 1 hit die make use of the features of the humanoid type, but humanoids with only 1 hit die go with the class-based features instead, rather than in addition to).
Okay, we have some tiny flying critters that have both fly-by attack and the attach special ability. Normally, a tiny creature must enter the target's space to attack, thus provoking an attack of opportunity. The fly-back attack feat negates this in most circumstances. But if they use their attach ability and remain attached to the target, thus not using the remainder of their movement in a fly-by, would they provoke an attack of opportunity as any other tiny creature would? The DM wasn't sure, but thinks that because it has fly-by attack, it may negate attacks of opportunity whether it moves past the target or not, while it is my opinion that if it doesn't move past, it isn't actually making a fly-by attack. Thoughts?
In the Ultimate Options: Grit and Gunslingers, two variants on grit are offered - Guile (Int-based) and Panache (Cha-based). I like these options for the purpose of optimizing multi-class options, but I'm just not sure if they should be freebies. The reason I say this is because in most other cases where an option is offered to switch the ability modifier that controls a feature, there is some kind of cost incurred. For instance, switching a melee attack bonus from Strength to Dexterity, or switching a CMB bonus from Strength to Dexterity both require a feat burn (Weapon Finesse, and Agile Maneuvers, respectively). And if you want to multiclass sorceror and monk, for instance, and want both to work off of Wisdom, you are forced to take the Empyreal bloodline to the exclusion of all others (unless you take the cross-blooded feature, and don't get me started on the stupidity of allowing that as a freebie). So what do you all think? Should Guile and Panache be offered as freebies, or should they be treated as feats, bringing the variants more inline with what it would cost any other class to make ruling ability switches?
Graverisen [Achievement] Death is no stranger to you, for you have risen from the
Requirement: Die and be brought back at least twice. Benefit: You gain a single-use supernatural ability to
Here is my question - does the phrase "if you die and are brought back to life" refer to coming back to life via this feat, or only to resurrection magics such as raise dead or resurrection? In short, does it allow the character to come back from the brink of death repeatedly, or does it simply allow a character to treat resurrection magics as Buy One, Get One Free?
I've got a situation that I'm not quite sure how to deal with it. First, one of the characters is a Lawful Neutral Sorceror 1/Hungry Ghost Monk 3. He's also a dhampir, playing in Carrion Crown, which is set in Ustalav, where dhampir are generally viewed as monsters and met with distrust, if not outright hostility. On several occasions, he has asked clerics (both party members and npcs) not to channel positive energy to harm the undead when he is in range, explaining that he has an undead sorceror bloodline that is the result of their being some undead in his far distant past, and which causes him to take damage from channeled positive energy as if he were undead. Of course, that is a bald-faced lie, because it is his dhampir race, not his sorceror bloodline that causes that. It's a perfectly understandable lie, but a lie nonetheless, and it is still a mark against his Lawful alignment. Had this only happened once or twice, it would not be that big of a deal, but he's repeated the lie several times, most of which came after he started taking monk levels. For the most part, the only things he does that are in keeping with a Lawful Neutral alignment are that he tries to micromanage every aspect of combat by dictating strategy to the other players - "you, go there; you, use that weapon; you, cast that spell," and to set himself up as the default party treasurer, deciding who gets what from found treasure to make sure everybody stays relatively even. But even those things aren't due to a conscious adherence to a lawful neutral alignment, but simply because that is how he has always played every character he has ever played, according to what some players from his former groups have told me. The worst and most egregious deviation from alignment happened this past Sunday, though. Since there are a couple dhampir in the group, and I wanted to throw them a racial challenge that was different from the conventional mob with pichforks, so I threw in a side plot where an alchemist has put out a bounty for dhampir specimens. So the party runs into a group of monster hunters who want to take the two dhampir party members. A fight breaks out, all but one of the bounty hunters are killed, with one unconscious and near death. When the party discovers that the remaining bounty hunter is still alive, the paladin binds and gags him to be taken to the authorities when they reach the next town. On the bounty hunters, they find a note or hire indicating that their employer wants the specimens alive, so the party knows at that point that the bounty hunters did not intend to kill the two, only to abduct them. But at that point, the supposedly lawful neutral dhampir monk thinks to himself, "He tried to kidnap me, and his dead buddies could hurt me with positive energy, so maybe he can too. I'm not having any part of keeping him prisoner, he needs to die." So he walks up to the bound, gagged, unconscious and helpless prisoner and used ki strike to stomp on his head a few times, killing him dead dead. That murder. That's not only an unlawful act, that's also an evil act. And it was done right in front of a paladin. Unlike the repeated lying, that's not something I can just let go without some kind of repercussion. I've got a couple ideas, but I wanted to get some opinions. Of course, at this point, I'm not sure what the paladin is going to do, as her player hasn't yet decided, and that could be a total gamechanger. One thing I'm thinking about is forcing him to change his alignment, thus preventing him from gaining any more monk levels. I've given him lesser warnings before, and he's ignored them. I'm also thinking about having my good-aligned npc suggest to the paladin that she execute a "citizen's arrest" on the monk and leave him to the mercy of the court when they reach the next city. Of course, the paladin may think of this option on her own. Are there any other suggestions of how I should handle this situation?
1) Some of my players have interpreted the "control mount in battle" option as referring only to battlefield mass combat scenarios, not to ordinary mounted combat, arguing that the devs conspicuously chose the word "battle," rather than "combat" in that part of the skill entry. I disagree, and the Mounted Combat section beginning on page 201 of the core rulebook seems to support my opinion that this is supposed to apply to any combat situation, not just mass combat. I'm just curious if anyone else has interpreted it the way my players did (and I suspect the main reason they were arguing that point is because they didn't want to have to spend 300 gp for a combat-trained mount). 2) Is there an actual rule that governs when a mount will rear or buck, especially if they've taken damage? Or is this something that is left entirely to DM's discretion (not that I have any problem with that)?
There was a regional feat listed under Jalmeray, called Secret of Steel-Shattering Spirit (a quite nice monk feat) in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting. When this book was reworked into the Inner Sea World Guide, this feat disappeared, though most of the other remained in some form. Was this feat left out as an oversight, or was it intentionally removed from the game? If so, why? Did the Devs think it was too overpowered?
Under the variant rule for Wound/Vigor Points, how are Wound Points calculated for Undead creatures? Normally, Wound Points are equal to Con score x2, but Undead have a Con score of 0. Are their Wound Points instead based on their Charisma score, or based on the Con score the creature had before it gained the Undead template? Edit: misspelled "wound"
A lot of players tend to steer clear of using whips, because they do puny damage, and non-lethal damage at that. But I think there is a lot of potential in the whip as a combat weapon, especially given its 15' reach. They can be used very effectively to trip or disarm opponents without provoking AoO's, due to the reach. I am also thinking about its possible application as a limited-duration grapple weapon (taking an opponent out of combat for one round, though it would be difficult to maintain beyond one round without some kind of physical modification to the whip). I'm also thinking about custom-made whips - instead of a standard 15' whip, a 10' whip with 5' attachments, such as a cat o' nine tails (lethal damage), or a small grappling hook (prolonged grapple, unhorse a rider, etc), and so on. This might be a masterwork-only weapon, though. Thoughts?
Pathfinder basically did away with Level Adjustments, so how would adding a template (for instance, adding the half-celestial template) affect the party's ECL? Would the party be considered one or more levels higher for the purposes of determining xp from encounters when using the quick xp method? Templates suggest CR adjustments to base characters, but that does not translate precisely into ECL adjustments when templates are added to player characters.
According to the rules, if an army is fighting within a fortified area, it gets to add the combat/defense bonuses provided by those fortifications to its own offensive and defensive bonuses. Three questions have come up in my group: 1) Should the DV bonus provided by walls apply against airborne attacks (such as, oh, a flight of wyverns)? 2) Wouldn't watchtowers more likely add to OM rather than DV? The number of combatants who can fight from a watchtower is negligible compared to the size of the army itself. While a few dozen soldiers might be able to fight from a watchtower, the vast bulk of the army within the city walls is going to be on the ground or on the battlements, and the watchtowers aren't going to be much of a hidrance to an invading army's ability to inflict damage on those forces that aren't inside or atop the watchtowers (which is about 99% of your army). In my opinion, watchtowers should add +1 or +2 to your OM and to your initiative (if you're using init in your mass combat) since they can see the approaching army from far away, and perhaps even grant the Sniper Support tactic, but they shouldn't add anything to DV. Just my opinion, of course. 3) Should a castle's +8 Defense modifier apply to an army that is entrenched within the city walls in a district containing a castle, but not actually within the castle walls?
I could swear that I saw somewhere listed the ad hoc xp for taking part in the tournement in Pitax, in addition to individual event xp, but now I can't find it. I've combed the book three times and apparently keep overlooking it. Can someone point me to which page that is listed on? It's driving me nuts!
One of my players is playing a Crusader (3.5E class from Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords - okay, yeah, I know, dumbest book ever made for the 3.5 system, and I'm still kicking myself for allowing it in my game). Anyway, here is the quandry: Crusaders are very similar to paladins and cavaliers in that they are strict followers of a cause and a code. They're not just fancy fighters with a few extra abilities - those abilities come with heavy dose of responsibility. Now, the Crusader in question is dedicated to the service of Sarenrae and to the cause of opposing slavery wherever he finds it. Caught in the middle of a wish war, the party enters a room where a trio of efreet are holding some human prisoners and coercing them to make wishes for them (the emulating spells aspect) to use against the party in battle. Two of the prisoners are cowed into making the wishes for the efreet, while the third remains stubborn and refuses to comply. The following round, to punish the obstinate prisoner, the efreeti improves the grapple to do automatic damage, trying to keep the prisoner conscious while putting the fear of death into him. He overdoes it a little, and the prisoner passes out, but is not dead (and the party could tell he wasn't dead by the way the efreeti was treating his unconscious form). All three efreet are basically grappling the prisoners, holding blades to their throats, so the prisoners are considered as occupying all of the same squares that the efreet are occupying. This is important to note, because the Crusader has a breath weapon ability - line of electricity, and because of the grappling, there's no way to breathe on a grappling efreeti without also breathing on the prisoner he's grappling. Now there were plenty of ways the Crusader could reacted to that situation that would have had a better chance of not automatically killing the prisoner, especially since it was in the efreeti's best interest to not only save but revive the prisoner. But rather than entertain any of those options first, the Crusader immediately chose to breathe, knowing it would probably kill the prisoner as well. Now, it is my opinion that a Crusader who is dedicated to upholding the tenets of Sarenrae and to freeing the imprisoned and enslaved would have considered such an action to be a last resort, something to be done only when no other options were left, certainly not the first choice out of the gate. As such, it is almost without question a violation of his code and the tenets of his faith. However, what I'm trying to decide is if this should be considered a major transgression, for which Sarenrae would extol a heavy price (long-term blindness and loss of faith-based Crusader class abilities until he completes a specific task that she designates, or something like that), or a moderate transgression for which she would extol a moderate price (loss of his blindsense ability until he again proves himself, and loss of his faith-based Crusader class abilities until he seeks an Atonement spell), or a mild transgression for which she would extol a slap on the wrist (loss of class abilities for a day or so). Thoughts?
Can anyone point me to where I might find some official discussion on what the limitations are for wishes granted by geniekind? I know they are somewhat less limited than the wish spell, but more limited than god-granted wishes. But I haven't seen anything giving much detail to how much more powerful they can be than the regular wish spell. I've found several homebrew discussions and ideas, but nothing official. If there is no official commentary from Pathfinder sources, 3.5 sources will do just fine, if anyone knows of any.
I know that base value sets the upper limit on base item value that could pretty much automatically be found within a city and its markets. But is that referring only to base item value of mundane items, before any magic is applied? For instance, if you have a city with a base value of 3000, does that mean that any munane *or magic* item with a base value of 3000 gp or less can be found there? I.e. would +1 weapons and armor, all potions, all scrolls up to 7th level (and all wizard/cleric/druid scrolls up to 8th level), and so on, be automatically available without a roll? That's the way I've always played it, but one of my players mentioned that he thought it meant only mundane items (after all, there are a few mundane items, such as some transports and some armors and barding that could go above the base value of a city). So now I'm wondering if I was playing it right before. Thoughts?
Most of the time, gaming groups see red and just go hacking their way through everything they meet. Fleeing from overly powerful opponents isn't an option, and "parley" isn't in their vocabulary. But from time to time, interesting things do happen to turn the encounter sideways so that it plays out in unforeseen ways. One of my groups just encountered a sabretooth tiger on the prowl. But rather than attacking it outright, the druid decided they should let her animal companion (a female tiger) take care of the situation. So while the rest of the party stood back to avoid spooking the thing, her tiger animal companion advanced on the sabretooth ... and, well, you and me, baby, ain't nothin' but mammals ... long story short, in about 3 or 4 months time, there will be a new half-sabretooth addition to the family, assuming we can stop the stupid cat from rushing headlong into every other encounter from now until then. So what are some unexpected ways your encounters have turned out?
I'm running a Kingmaker campaign ... with a twist. I thought it would be fun to throw the entire region into Ravenloft so that we could incorporate some of the rules and elements of Ravenloft into the game, which has been challenging, to say the least. One thing that I asked of my players is that when creating their back stories, each character should have some dark secret or ignominious past that could somehow be exploited at key points by the Mists or by the Dark Powers or by the seeming near-sentience of Ravenloft itself. I've got some ideas, but I wanted to hear a few other thoughts on just how those secrets could come into play. One thing you need to know about the characters is that most of them come from modern 20th and 21st century America (some were pulled from the 80s, some were pulled from now), and were pulled into the Mists and found themselves in a Ravenloft that has grown to include all of the relevant portions of Golarion. So here are the characters and their dark secrets or embarassing pasts: Dexter - Soulknife - accidentally responsible for the death of his younger brother Roland - Samurai - was a lawyer who knowingly defended guilty politicians Lizzy - Druid - was formerly a prostitute who reformed and became a veterinarian Jimi - Cleric - murdered his abusive father (this character is the only one who didn't come from the modern day) So, just looking for some interesting and clever ideas about how those pasts could rear their ugly heads in game.
Does anyone know where to find the rules on returning from the ethereal plane? We had a character that got abducted to the ethereal, but his captor was killed while still on the ethereal (and since neither the character nor the captor were summoned creatures or have the outsider subtype, they don't automatically return, unless they were taken by means of the Etherealness spell, which they weren't). I have the 3rd Edition Manual of the Planes, and it talks about gates existing to move back into the material plane, but doesn't mention where they are or the percentage likelihood of happening upon them. Does anyone know where the methodology and chance of returning from the ethereal are described in detail? Or is this something that is purely left up to DM's discretion?
Probably a dumb question, but the experience point totals listed for achieving kingdom building goals, are they supposed to be divided evenly among the players, or are those supposed to be per-player totals. For instance, it says 2400 xp for founding a kingdom. Does each player get 2400, or is it 2400 divided by the number of pcs?
One of my players decided to play a raptoran character (Races of the Wild), and we're trying to decide whether he should be able to get full-round attacks from the air when hovering. This, of course, depends on whether hover is considered a free action or a move action. And I can't find anywhere where this is clarified. Also, by the 3.5 SRD, a flying creature with only Average maneuverability could not fly straight up, but could only ascend at a maximum 60 degree angle. Now, there are varying opinions on whether the 3.5 SRD remains in play where the Pathfinder rules don't specifically contradict them (the whole backwards compatability thing suggests that it is still in play). So are movement restrictions like that still applicable, or are they totally done away with. And last question, when a flying character is engaged in aerial combat with another flying creature, or a hovering creature is engaged in melee with a ground-based creature, should the flying/hovering creature be able to make a 5-foot step in the air as a free action, just as one would do on the ground?
This question has come up a few times, and I can't find an official ruling in the Core Rulebook. In order to pin an opponent, a grappler needs to make two successful grapple checks, one to establish the grapple, and one to maintain. Does the grappled character then need to make two successful checks to break grapple in order to be entirely free from it? In other words, if a pinned character makes one successful CMB or Escape Artist check, is he simply moved from the pinned condition back to the grappled condition, or is he totally out of the grapple altogether? The latter is the way we've been playing it, but one player has been making a huge fuss about that, so for the time being I've decided to meet him in the middle and house rule that it will stay as we've been doing it, but on a natural 20, the character can break out of both the grapple and the pin (and conversely, on a natural 1, the character takes a -4 on his next attempt to break grapple). But I would like to know if this is specifically clarified anywhere in the rules.
This question came up during tonight's game. An 11th level Oracle with the Flames mystery and Body of Flame revelation is being grappled and pinned by a paraika div and threatened by two adjacent morghs. She wants to use the revelation to shape change into a Large fire elemental in order to break out of the grapple. Putting aside for a moment the fact that this would not guarantee that she would get out of the grapple, since A) the paraika is more than capable of grappling a large creature, and B) the paraika is immune to fire (the best she can hope for is a +1 size bonus to CMB to break grapple and a +3 size and dex bonus to CMD for the paraika to maintain the pin), the RAW for supernatural abilities are a tad vague about when exactly a Concentration check might be needed or when it might provoke an AoO (states that supernatural abilities "generally" don't provoke, with "generally" being the operative word). Also, while the description for spell-like abilities states that a spell-like ability does not require a verbal, somatic or material component, the description for a supernatural ability does not make that distinction, so should it simply be inferred that the same guideline should be applied to supernatural abilities that mimick spells (specifically, it states that the Body of Flame revelation for an 11th level Oracle is "as Elemental Body III")? So, to recap: 1) Should an Oracle in the pinned condition be required to make a concentration check to activate Body of Flame? 2) Would doing so in this circumstance (pinned and surrounded by enemies) be one of those rare instances where a supernatural ability would provoke an AoO?
Picture this: a party consisting of a rogue, a druid and half dragon are ambushed by a pair of noble efreet. A few rounds later, outgunned with their hit points rapidly dwindling, the druid wild shapes into an air elemental, slipping into whirlwind form as soon as she is able. As a whirlwind, she sucks up the rogue and the half dragon and takes to the air in retreat. The efreet each have two fireballs remaining in their arsenal, so they manage to catch the group in one dual fireball before they're able to get out of range. The fireball kills the druid, so the half dragon unfurls its wings and makes a grab for the falling rogue, catching him just before he plummets out of reach. Since the half dragon doesn't fly nearly as fast as the druid as an air elemental, he can't get them out of range of the final pair of fireballs before they take their final parting shot. So the question is this (in two parts): 1) While the rogue is basically tumbling helplessly inside the whirlwind, should he be able to use Evasion to avoid the fireball damage if he makes his save? 2) In the succeeding round, with the druid dead and the rogue now dangling from the grasp of his fleeing half dragon companion, should he get Evasion if he makes his save against the final fireball (since the half dragon doesn't have enough fly speed to get out of range in one round)?
Is anyone aware of any feats, class features or abilities that increase a character's natural reach? I know there is the 2nd Level "Morphic Reach" feature from the War Shaper PrC, and a 10th Level Summoner could increase his own reach by applying an eidolon evolution to himself. And, of course, there are polymorph spells, lycanthropy and so on that can potentially increase reach, but are there any ways I haven't thought of, especially at lower levels? One of my players is asking, and I am allowing them to use WotC sourcebooks, D&D Wiki (on a case-by-case basis) as well as Pathfinder sourcebooks.
Does anybody know where I can look for effects of aging from child to adult? The PFRPG rulebook lists ability modifiers from adulthood on forward, but doesn't say anything about moving from, say, a young teen to an adult. I've got a yuan-ti (thelassakar, the lawful good variety) npc who was acquired as an orphaned child but has just reached adulthood (age 12 for yuan-ti). Should there be a net zero ability adjustment across the board, or should there be some adjustments?
In the 3.5 version of the Tumble skill, if you failed your Tumble check while trying to tumble through an occupied enemy space, you not only provoke AoO, but your movement stops in the space in front of whomever you were trying to tumble past. In the Pathfinder version of Acrobatics, it states that if you fail the Acrobatics check while attempting to move through an enemy space, it provokes and if damage is taken, a new Acrobatics check has to be made to avoid falling or being knocked prone. However, it doesn't say that the movement necessarily stops, especially if the second check is successful. So should that be interpreted to mean that an attempt to tumble/dive/slide through an enemy space could still succeed even on a failed Acrobatics check if A) the opponent misses with his/her AoO, or B) the character takes damage but succeeds on the second Acrobatics check? Or should it instead be assumed that the "stops movement" clause from 3.5 is grandfathered in? Edit to add: I'm referring to moving through a space occupied by an opponent, not merely moving through their threatened area.
The party has a lycanthrope. Rather than using the Level Adjustment and buyoff method, we instead borrowed some examples from sources that provided monster class levels (such as Savage Species and Libris Mortis) and designed a weretiger level progression and let the character take a few weretiger class levels. Well, we recently discovered a possible major drawback to doing that - The question arose, if that character dies and is reincarnated by the party's druid, instead of paying the gold to have him resurrected, how would we handle the loss of monster class levels? If the creature he is reincarnated as doesn't have the same LA as the lycanthrope, should he be allowed to exchange his monster class levels for new levels in classes he already has levels in (another couple levels of ranger, for instance), or should he just lose those levels altogether and be suddenly a few levels lower than the rest of the group? The latter would make more sense realistically, but the former would keep him par with the rest of the group, imo. What do y'all think?
|
