Hi guys. I'm wanting to check that I properly understand the mechanics of tweaking your deck after completed scenarios. So, I've put together an example of play, and would like people with more understanding than me to confirm if I've got it right.
For this example, our volunteer will be Harsk! Say hello, Harsk.
Hark is a totally new character, who's been built using the suggested starting deck from the book. He's just soloed Brigandoom successfully. From that scenario, Harsk has successfully acquired a Sleep spell and a Returning Throwing Axe +1. He's also banished his Potion of Vision. We'll pretend Harsk's acquired no other boons and ignore the scenario reward for the sake of simplicity.
Now that he's beaten the villain, Harsk combined his buried cards, discarded cards, deck and hand together.
He then has to filter his deck back down to 15 cards for the next scenario, using the proportions on his character card (5 blessings, 5 weapons, etc).
Harsk can replace one of his starting Weapons with the Returning Throwing Axe +1, if he wants to. He'll then keep the axe going forward, and the replaced Weapon will go to the box.
Harsk can't keep the Sleep spell, as he has no Spell slots in his deck. The Sleep spell has to be returned to the box.
Harsk's also short an Item, as he used his Potion of Vision during the scenario. If Harsk had acquired other Items during the scenario, he'd have to use one of those to fill the gap in his deck left by the banished potion. As he hasn't, he has to fill the space using an Item drawn from the box, with the restriction that the chosen Item must have the Basic trait.
If a character doesn't put a newly discovered card in his deck at the end of a scenario, it returns to the box, and he loses access to that card in the future. If he later wants that card in his deck, he'll have to find it again during a future scenario.
I bet more than a few of you have read that title up these and given a little sigh before clicking on this thread. I can't say I entirely disagree – if there's one aspect of PFS that's been overexposed recently, it's haunts. This situation is only compounded by the fact that many people are still shaky on the way that haunts actually work; and even for the rules-savvy of our community, there are still some grey areas on how they function.
I'm not intending to talk about the mechanics of haunts in this post. That topic's been done to death all over the place. I'm also not intending to harp on about any haunt in particular. This post is on haunts in general, and their use in Pathfinder Society Organised Play scenarios.
In recent seasons, haunts seem to have become extremely popular with scenario writers. Every other scenario I pick up has a haunt in it somewhere. Enough is enough. I believe that there's a right way and a wrong way to use haunts, and far too many modules of late have been using them in the wrong way.
First and most importantly: A haunt is not a trap.
Read that sentence a few times. Engrave it into your brain. It's the most important part of this post.
As most of you probably know, haunts originated in Pathfinder #2, The Skinsaw Murders. The haunts in that adventure told the story of a doomed family, torn apart by insanity, jealousy and betrayal. As characters explored an ancient, crumbling manor house, they saw the ancient fall of the manor's former owners play out before their eyes – indeed, they themselves were forced to re-enact some of the horrific events of the past, possibly with fatal consequences.
Can you spot the most important detail of that paragraph? The key element that every haunt should possess, the element that differentiates them so absolutely from being a trap by any other name?
Information. It's that simple. First and foremost, a haunt is a way to provide the player characters with information that they have no other way of discovering, and to do it in a creepy and interesting way. If you're using a haunt, you're able to give the characters ringside seats to ancient secrets, hidden tragedies known to not a single living soul.
Too many haunts in recent scenarios provide no information whatsoever. They're simply traps by another name. When these haunts are over, the players have no more information about the plot of the scenario than they did before.
So please, scenario writers. Before you include a haunt in your module stop and think. Ask yourself this question: What does this haunt tell the players? What information do I need to impart with this encounter that I can't impart in another way?
And if you're not telling the players anything with the haunt, then please consider replacing it with a trap. A trap doesn't have to tell a story.
Please stop cheapening haunts, and let them return to the rare, evocative, informative encounters that they were initially designed as. I can only hope such behaviour will result in less haunts in modules, and improve the quality of haunts in those cases that they do appear.
A haunt is not a trap. Please stop treating haunts as if they are.
I've already given this one a five-star review, and this post mostly serves to reiterate that and mention the few queries and niggles I had regarding a stellar scenario.
Firstly, Act 2!
The chase is great, and the scenes you go through are a lot of fun.
My one problem is the Embassy Wall part. To pass this, you need a DC 18 Climb or a DC 12 Disable Device. Problem is, Disable Device is trained only, so most characters are stuck with a pretty tricky Climb check. The chase works best if the characters can stay on the quarry's heels, and it's no fun to be stymied on card 3 by a high wall.
Actually, looking through, this is also an issue on the Obstructive Hay Wagon card, with a DC 18 Escape Artist (a rare skill in my experience) or a DC 13 Handle Animal, which is trained only.
Unless you can use these skills untrained in a chase? I don't believe there's anything in the rules that would allow it, unfortunately.
Oh, and regarding the Pen - if you skip the encounter, you put the pen in the footlocker. Surely if Parani gets the pen, it should end up there anyway? Why isn't the pen recoverable if she steals it, but is if you skip the encounter? I'm asking from a 'making sense' point of view, I know mechanically it's because you can't be forced to fail a faction mission just because you skipped the optional encounter.
Secondly, Act 6!
In the final encounter, Parani at Tier 4-5 is hell on wheels. My group fought her in her secondary position, and were very close to a wipe. Admittedly, 4 players, including 3 humans and no 'proper' healers, but even so, her attack and damage are really good.
High initiative helped, but she missed once with her bow the whole fight. Got a bit less awesome in melee with the axe, but even so, she was giving the human barbarian distinct trouble even then. Final hp totals for the group were -6 (human inquisitor/gunslinger), -9 (dhampir inquisitor), 8 (human barbarian) and the human monk on full. Frankly, if the barbarian had gone down, Parani'd have taken the monk eventually, as his damage was awful.
Overall, these were only minor issues in the end. I really liked this scenario - the antagonist is actually sensible for a change, trying to cut her losses, silence her partners, and generally behaving like a clued-up villain whose only really mistake is to underestimate the Pathfinders.
Similarly, the Pathfinder leadership (well, Grandmaster Torch) come across as cunning and well-prepared, with a solid plan for the situation; a far cry from the usual sense of distant unconcern with a dash of general ignorance that tends to filter down from on high in the briefings.
Fear Aura (Su) The use of this ability is a free action. The aura can freeze an opponent (as in the case of a mummy's despair) or function like the fear spell. Other effects are possible. A fear aura is an area effect. The descriptive text gives the size and kind of the area.
Some fear auras can paralyse, others panic, and so on. That's all fine. My questions are these:
1) The aura functions 'like the fear spell', but how do you determine how long the panic lasts if the opponent fails their save? The spell lasts 1 round/level, but as an (Su) ability, a fear aura has no caster level listed. Are opponents only panicked within the aura's area of effect? Do they snap out of it once they leave? How does this work?
2) Do creatures have to save against a fear aura every round, or does making the save render you immune to the aura thereafter? The first seems quite harsh but by the wording seems to be how it works.
Greetings all! I'm posting this in the hopes that a more spatially aware GM will be able to assist me with a problem I'm having regarding this module.
I'm running this mod in about 4 hours, and as per usual, I've been going back over it again and again to check for any problems I might have when it comes to game time. And I'm just spotted quite a big one.
Round 2: Test of Three Towers - what does this actually look like? How are the towers arranged? Are they a certain distance from each other? What, exactly, is the map on the inside front cover showing, if each tower should have 2 levels to it?
I have real issues visualising things like this, and the map is leaving me bewildered. If the worst comes to the worst I will just wing it, but if anyone has a good handle on what this map is supposed to look like, please explain it to me!
In Version 3 of the PFS Guide to Organise Play, I know that the Guide stated that raise death and resurrection did not incur any permanent negative levels when cast in PFS play, as a change to the normal death and dying rules.
From reading the boards, I have been made aware that this wording is no longer present in Version 4 of the guide. However, if I hadn't read mention of this in a couple of threads, I'd have had no idea, and would have kept on running raise dead as under the Version 3 rules in error.
My point is that I find it's a lot harder to spot rules changes that have been removed in updates than it is to spot new additions to the rules.
Is there any way that new versions of the guide could note it somewhere when a previous PFS 'house rule' is removed, so as to avoid us less observant sorts from missing important rules changes like this one?
I had a look around to see if a thread like this had already been created and couldn't find one. Apologies if I'm retreading old ground.
This is mostly a thread for people to collate their own twists, additions, enhancements and side treks to The Haunting of Harrowstone - and possibly later modules as well. Here's my initial offering; a variant monster that should do well with 'The Professor's Return' optional encounter.
Beckoning Zombie
A beckoning zombie has arisen for one purpose; to seek out the one closest to them in life and slay them. This is generally their husband, daughter, father, or similar.
The zombie remembers pieces of its old life and travels to the place they think this person is most likely to be. If they locate their target, they attempt to kill them.
Should they succeed, the zombie passes on to its final rest, falling lifeless alongside their victim.
Special Qualities: A beckoning zombie does not gain DR 5/slashing.
Special Attacks: A beckoning zombie gains the following special attack.
Beckoning Call (Su): This ability only works on the zombie's chosen loved one. As a standard action, the zombie can call to their target; this call is generally a whispered, moaning repetition of the target's name.
If the target is within 100 feet of the zombie, the target must make a Will save (DC 12) or be captivated as by harpy song.
A victim under the effects of a beckoning call moves toward the zombie using the most direct means available. If the path leads them into a dangerous area such as through fire or off a cliff, that creature receives a second saving throw to end the effect before moving into peril. Captivated creatures can take no actions other than to defend themselves. A victim within 5 feet of the zombie simply stands and offers no resistance to the zombie's attacks.
This effect continues for as long as the zombie beckons, and it can maintain the beckoning as a move action. This is a sonic mind-affecting charm effect. The save DC is Charisma-based.
Abilities: As a standard zombie, except its Charisma is increased by 2. This increases its hit points by 2 and its Fortitude save by 1.
Special Qualities: A beckoning zombie does not gain the staggered special quality.
As I noted in the thread title, this post will contain detailed spoilers for a new creature introduced in Tomb of the Iron Medusa. Don't click under the cut if you want to avoid this!
Spoiler:
OK, so the Nemhain is a cool idea, but as written, the creature both a) breaks established Pathfinder rules and b) is ungodly powerful for its CR.
First, the rulebreaking. The Nemhain has regeneration 5 (electricity or good). However, regeneration explicitly states the only a creature with a Con score can have regeneration. As an undead, the Nemhain has no Con score and should not have this ability.
Secondly, the Nemhain's melee attack is bizarre. For an example of what I mean, let's look at a wraith. A wraith has 'incorporeal touch +6 (1d6 negative energy plus 1d6 Con drain). There's a note in the Special Abilities section noting that targets get a Fort save to avoid the Con drain and the wraith gains hp if it drains Con. That's all fine. Now the Nemhain.
The Nemhain has 'incorporeal touch +21 (3d8 plus 1d6 Con drain). Firstly, what type of damage is it dealing? It's not using one of the recognised natural weapons, so it doesn't default to P/S/B damage. And it doesn't say if it's negative energy or elemental damage, leaving it untyped. Furthermore, there's no entry for this ability in the Special Abilities section, meaning there is *no save* against the Con drain.
I have not been able to find another creature in either Bestiary that does 1d6 Con drain on a hit, no save allowed. Futhermore, with the nemhain's 'Bound spirits' ability, it can attack with this up to twice per round. How do you feel about 6d8 damage and 2d6 Con drain, no save, no DR, no nothing? It's all untyped damage, so no death ward, either.
Furthermore - and here we get into the overpowered rather than actually incorrect or unlisted stuff - the Nemhain can cast harm up to 3 times per day, potentially healing itself up to 450 hp. This is on top of its 225 hp and incorporeal status halving damage from many common forms of attack. It's also one of those rare breed of incorporeal creatures with elemental resistances, something I don't seen any other incorporeal undead possessing. (though the incorporeal shadow demon has some.) Add to this the 1/day antilife shell and this creature is a murder machine.
Could we maybe get some clarification on the incorporeal touch, at least? Does the Con drain really have no save allowed?
Argh, I just remembered that north is not straight up the map, so my blathering about east and west isn't right. When reading my post, pretend that north is straight up the map rather than diagonally up, or else it won't make much sense.
I'm going to be running Kingmaker for my gaming group when it comes out, and one of my players is muttering about a mounted combat based fighter.
I know that in most modules and adventure paths, mounted combat is a terrible idea - the opportunities to use it are few and far between, the logisitics of getting a mount around with the party can be difficult, and resources spent becoming better at fighting from horse/camel/lizardback are generally resources wasted.
Is Kingmaker likely to differ from the norm in this regard, or should my player be considering a different character?
A straightforward question, this. If you give a monster more Hit Dice or class levels, does it gain a stat point every 4 levels like a character does? Or is this effectively replaced by the 'advanced' monster template? I've had a look through the Bestiary, but I can't find it mentioned anywhere.
This is a house rule that I've thought of after the discussions in the heavy armour thread over channel energy. I'm not planning on implementing it yet; I want to see how clerics are in play first, and if it's necessary. But I like the idea of it, so it might see use.
Enhanced Channeling (Su): Whenever a cleric of 10th level or higher uses channel energy, they may choose to expend two daily uses of channel energy instead of one. If they do, that use of channel energy both heals living targets and harms undead (if positive energy) or both harms living targets and heals undead (if negative energy). If the cleric possesses the Selective Channeling feat, they may choose to exclude undead targets, living targets, or a mixture of the two, up to their usual exclusion limit. In all other respects, enhanced channeling functions like channel energy.
I've been flicking through the spells section, and there's a few changes that I think are pretty awesome. Just to kick things off;
Darkness: Darkvision now applies in a darkness spell! The Deeper Darkness spell still thwarts it, but it's nice to finally see darkvision actually making some headway. No more conversations of
'It's dark. You can't see anything.'
'But I have darkvision!'
'It's magically dark. Sorry buddy.'
Also, Chain Lightning! My first glance was 'Whaaaaa? -2 DC on secondary bolts? Why the extra complication, dude? This spell was never exactly strong!'
Then I read more carefully. 'Wait...the secondary bolts deal EQUAL damage to the primary bolt? Oh ho. Oh ho ho ho.'
Makes me think Delayed Blast Fireball kind of sucks now. But hey, I never liked it that much anyway. ;p
Finally, Gate! You can still summon monsters with hit dice equal to or less than twice your caster level.(boo!) Buuuut...you can only *control* them if they have hit dice less than or equal to your caster level. (yay!) Otherwise, you've just brought through a 35 hit dice whatever, and it's free to do whatever the hell it likes. :D
So, what spell changes have you really enjoyed? Speak up!
I'm curious as to how many people when playing 3.5 properly applied the somatic component rules. Did everyone remember that the cleric and the druid (yes, and the wizard and the like, but having a hand free was never a chore for them) needed to put away their weapon or drop their heavy shield if they wanted to cast a spell? What were people's opinions on two-handed weapons; did they prevent the use of somatic components? Did everyone's clerics and druids use light shields so they would always have one hand free? Or did people just shrug and ignore it? Inquiring minds (well, mostly me) want to know!
In general, I love the Pathfinder rules. I keep running across little changes and clarifications that I think should have been included in the game years ago, and it's brilliant. However, there is one area where I'm finding the rules a little obtuse, and that's the matter of poison. Now, I don't know if I'm just missing something obvious, but I'm going to try and explain my problems with it, and hopefully I'll be able to get the official word on how it all works.
My main problem is with the 'multiple doses' rule. As written, the rules state: 'Each additional dose [of poison] extends the total duration of the poison by half its total duration. In addition, each dose of the poison increases the DC to resist the poison by +2. This increase is cumulative.'
Consider the following situation. Valeros is fighting 3 Medium monstrous spiders and an assassin, who wields a pair of weapons treated with Medium monstrous spider venom. The initiatives are as follows:
15 – Medium monstrous spiders (x3)
11 – Valeros
4 – Assassin (weapons treated with Medium monstrous spider venom)
Medium spider venom: DC 14, 1d2 Str for 4 rounds.
Say that Valeros is bitten by all 3 of the Medium monstrous spiders. When poisoned, at what point in the round does the character have to make their save? Does he make 3 saves at the base DC, then 1 per round for the next N rounds at the heightened DC? Does he wait until the end of the initiative count on which he was poisoned to make any poison saves, and just make one save per type of poison he was afflicted with on that initiative count, heightening DCs as appropriate? Does he wait until the start (or the end?) of his turn to make poison saves? Does he wait until the end of the round to make poison saves?
Furthermore, say that the assassin then stabs Valeros twice, inflicting two more doses of Medium monstrous spider venom. In short, what happens if a character suffers additional doses of the same poison later in the round? Does it merely increase the DC of his save still further? Does he have to make another save? Does he then have to make one or two saves in subsequent rounds, and what are the DCs of those saves?
Finally, if he is poisoned again in subsequent rounds by Medium monstrous spider venom, does it have any effect? Does it increase the DC of the save he is making? Does it force additional saves?
So, in full:
Valeros is bitten by 3 Medium monstrous spiders on Initiative count 14. How many saves does he have to make, when does he have to make said save(s), and what is the DC of any such saves?
Valeros is then stabbed twice by an assassin on Initiative count 4. The assassin's weapons are treated with Medium monstrous spider venom. How does this interact with the identical poison already afflicting Valeros?
Valeros is then bitten twice more by the spiders next round, on Initiative count 14, for a total of 7 doses of Medium monstrous spider venom in his system. What effect, if any, does this have on him, considering his already (repeatedly!) poisoned state?
This post mostly consists of some background I've dreamt up in order to use for Council of Thieves. I'm planning on playing a paladin in the campaign, and I was looking for a way that I could conceivably worship Aroden without having to deal with the pesky 'being dead' thing. I figure being a paladin of no specific deity, but revering Aroden first and foremost works. Anyway, the background! Critique and questions are welcomed; I'm hoping that they will help me to refine my ideas.
The Order of the Winged Eye
The Order of the Winged Eye was formed in 4303 AR, as an organisation of knights and warriors intending to bring succour to the weak and aid to the needy through force of arms and deeds of heroism. Their founder, a scion of House Jeggare, granted the Order deeds of land so that they would never be forced to sell their services or take actions for reasons other than the noblest of intentions.
Though their mandate sounded unrealistic and overly ambitious, strict recruiting practices and generally small numbers of members succeeded in maintaining the integrity and the honor of the Order for over three hundred years. The Order stood firm as a bastion of goodness and truth, no matter the temperament of the Empire as a whole. At its height, the Order consisted of a little over two hundred souls sworn to the service of righteousness. At the time of the death of Aroden, casualties and membership fluctuation saw the Order on the wane, but it still consisted of over one hundred swords. The Order contained no clerics*, and so while the death of the deity they held as their patron shocked them, it did not prevent them from trying to uphold the ideals of the deceased god.
In the thirty years after the death of Aroden, the Order was a beacon of hope in a dark time. Electing to remain uninvolved in the conflict between the noble houses of Cheliax, the Order devoted itself to protecting the common people from the excesses of the anarchy which resulted. This time was one of the Order's greatest and most selfless triumphs, but it was also to be the end of them. With the ascendancy of House Thrune to the throne of Cheliax, the Order became an annoyance at best, and a thorn in the side of the Empire at worst. Their lands were stripped from them, their funds were seized, and the members were informed that should they interfere with any member of the Chelaxian Empire in the future, a swift execution would be the most they could hope for. Since then, the Order has been in a steady decline.
By 4709 AR, The Order of the Winged Eye consists of less than twenty souls, and has gained only one new member in the past 20 years**. Having funded themselves privately from what wealth remained to their individual members since their fall from grace, their coffers are all but exhausted. Furthermore, the guiding light of the Order, Sir Falis Tymon, is over 150 years old. Even his half-elven heritage will not sustain him much longer, and he has a best a handful of years to live. No other member of the Order remembers a time before the ascendancy of House Thrune, and his fellows lack the spark of hope and stubborn will that Falis still nurtures, having been witness to the Order in its prime. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Falis's force of personality is really the only thing keeping the Order going.
*The stated reason for this was that the oaths clerics must swear to their gods would necessarily preclude them from swearing proper allegiance to the Order, being as member of the Order must uphold it before all other affiliations. The actual reason was a combination of the official one and the fact that the Order did not wish to be seen as the militant arm of any particular church. Indeed, the Order hoped to stay out of church politics entirely, fearing such entanglements would interfere with their work.
Alignment: LG. In the Order's days of glory, it also encompassed NG and LN individuals, but it has now been whittled down to a hard core.
Notable individuals: Sir Falis Tymon (LG venerable half-elf paladin 8; Joint Head of the Order), Sir Duncan Mordant (LG middle-aged human fighter 7; Joint Head of the Order), Orlen Jadros (LG male human paladin 1; paladin initiate, only 'recruit' in 20 years, and my would-be PC for Council of Thieves)
Composition: Mostly fighters and warriors. The Order always had a small number of paladins within its ranks, none of whom worshipped a specific deity – though all of which would name Aroden as their patron, if not the source of their divine abilities. As of 4709 AR the Order contains exactly two paladins, noted above.
That's all I have on the Order as a whole. The rest of my writings concern my character, Orlen Jadros, specifically. I'll only summarise them here. Suffice it to say Orlen's membership in the Order wasn't precisely voluntary. His father was an armoursmith, and his family had long supplied armour and weaponry to the Order. However, 12 years ago his father crossed a Chelaxian noble, and found his life forfeit. Knowing he was going to be executed and his property seized, he turned to the Order to take care of his 5 year old son after his death, his wife having died some years before, and having no-one else to turn to. Orlen is now 17, and has taken to the ideals of the Order with some gusto, though he's nervous at being sent out by himself. He has some romantic notion about breathing life back into the Order, but realistically it's already dead, and is likely to fade away within a few years.
That's all for now. Comments, questions and critique appreciated.
My players are currently running through Howl of the Carrion King, and at the end of the adventure, they'll probably want to spend some of their accumulated wealth. However, I suspect several of them may not want to stray that far from Kelmarane (plus I'd like to keep them away from Katapesh so their visit in book 3 can have that 'freshly unwrapped' smell to it), so my question is as follows;
Has a gold piece limit for Solku been printed anywhere, and if not, would anyone care to hazard a guess at one?
