Patryn of Elvenshae's page

I have generally followed the rule of thumb that your height is 1/4 of your distance, based on the fact that the DC for a high jump is 4 times the height, and the DC for a long jump is 1 times the distance. That takes you a bit higher than oneplus' math indicates it should, but is easy to calculate and has at least a tangential rules basis.

That's also the way it was calculated in 3.X, and it's what I use, too.

I know that will detect magic and spellcraft, the properties of a magic item can be determined with a DC 15 + spell level. How do you use this to determine the properties of say a +1 longsword or a +2 light hammer of bane? What is the spell level in this case? I thought I read this somewhere, but now I can't find it again.

As Domingo says, the DC is actually 15 + Caster Level, not Spell Level.

All magic items have a caster level - for the longsword +1, it's probably 3 (the absolute minimum) or 5 (the minimum for the creation feat).

The +2 light hammer with the bane property is probably CL 6 (the minumum for the +2 enhancement) or CL 8 (the default for the bane property).

So, to identify a +1 longsword, the Spellcraft DC is probably 18 or 20, which is easily doable for most Wizards / Magi at the appropriate level by Taking 10. For the +2 light hammer of [whatever] bane, it's likely DC 21 or 23.

Make sense?

Seems pretty straight forward. "If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon." Did the Magus use his Scimitar (and its associated bonuses) to disarm him? Is a Scimitar a weapon? Yes? Then he doesn't automatically pick up the disarmed weapon.

Yep - that's how I read it, too, especially given then "Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack" line in the Disarm description.

You don't always need agile maneuvers and weapon finesse. It really depends on your character build. Sometimes you can just use weapon finesse if the combat maneuver in question uses a light weapon.

I don't think that's correct; your CMD is always Strength-based, regardless of weapon used, unless you take Agile Manuevers (a feat whose existence stinks, personally stinking).

However, at my table it seemed that the consensus that it is different when the character makes a saving throw. Is this correct or was there some misunderstanding at my group's table.

Yeah - different in what way?

EDIT:

Maybe it wasn't "like 13 damage;" maybe it was 16, save for half, so you'd take 8, but then your energy resistance kicks in, which reduces that to 3?

What caster level do you have to be to make a pearl of power for a 3rd-level spell?

Yeah most people I know just hand-wave away the fact that you have to take off your magic items to bathe properly, it just struck me as funny that DnD seems to gloss over certain bodily needs and functions, even in the more gritty and realistic settings.

... what do you think Prestidigitation is for? :D

Patryn of Elvenshae wrote:

Yep - but, again, that's just for a generic example. For a PC-created one, the PC can pretty much independently set the CL to whatever they want it to be.

So a caster level 5 wizard can make a +1 Keen Brilliant Energy Longsword? Just set the CL of the abilities to 1, and 1 is less than 3 (1x3 for the enhancement bonus) so no problem?

If he had all the materials needed and the money required, then sure. It gets a little fuzzy around what specific spells are required, and whether or not you need to set the CL high enough to cast each individual spell, but there are examples where the CL of an item is less than the CL needed to cast the spells to create it in existing items, so I don't think you have to do so.

For instance, check out the "Ghost Touch" special ability. It's CL9 by default, costs a +1 bonus, and has a spell prereq of Plane Shift; you can't cast that as a wizard until 15th level, though you could cast it earlier as a cleric.

Is it actually specified anywhere that the CL listed in the special ability description is optional?

The listing there is the exact same as the listing on any other magic item, and is explicitly not a prerequisite.

Note, instead, the Spell Storing weapon quality:

Aura Strong evocation (plus aura of stored spell); CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, creator must be a caster of at least 12th level; Price +1 bonus.

This is a caster level as a prereq. Thus, to create a spell storing weapon - even a +1 spell storing longsword, which is just a +2 equivalent weapon - you need to be 12th-level.

Wounding only requires a cantrip (bleed) but the 'generic example' is CL 10. Why in the world would the 'example' Wounding set the CL to 10 when all it needs is a cantrip?

Because it results in a +2 equivalent weapon at minimum. All of the abilities which result in that are around CL 10 standard, even if PCs can craft them earler.

I think those aren't generic examples

They are exactly the same as the listings in any other magic item. They follow the same rules, and are "stock examples."

If you, the GM, generate a random flaming longsword +3, the CL of that weapon is 10.

If you hand generate one, you can make it pretty much whatever you want.

Patryn of Elvenshae wrote:

You do not need to be a CL8 to create a Bane weapon. Rather, the average CL of a randomly generated Bane weapon is at least 8.

Then how do you determine the CL?

"The caster level of a weapon with a special ability is given in the item description."

Yep - but, again, that's just for a generic example. For a PC-created one, the PC can pretty much independently set the CL to whatever they want it to be.

I don't think it's 3x the base price modifier because "If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met."

Yep - but, again, Bane doesn't have a CL requirement (just like pearls of power don't have a CL requirement).

I assume it's not the total bonus base price (+1 & Bane = +2 total, CL 6) or they would have said so.

It would also make it really hard to craft +10 effective enhancement weapons. :)

But in the crunch text it says you can only make potions from spells you know.

Which is just a restatement of the item creation rules.

The only prereqs for Power Attack are Str 13 and BAB +1, but the crunch text says you have to also be making an attack roll to use it.

Actually, you don't. You must declare Power Attack on your turn before you make any attack rolls, but you need not actually make any attack rolls on your turn.

For instance, a character could declare that they were using Power Attack, double move, and then apply the appropriate modifiers on their subsequent AoO made on an enemy's turn.

I'm trying to transfer the Pearl of Power ability into an arcane bond ring. That should be a simple question.

I didn't know if a Pearl of Power was slotless. It has been determined that it is slotted which means the minimum cost would be 1500gp, 750gp to craft. That is greater than the 1000gp price of the Pearl of Power (1st level).

It's actually really, really easy. Pearls of Power are slotless, but they aren't exactly bonus spell slots, so I consider that a wash for pricing (e.g., Price * 2 for Slotless * 1/2 for limitation).

That being said, you aren't changing them, you're just adding them to something else, so we'll take their prices as a given when calculating the final price of the combined item.

Whenever you are combining items, the order in which you do it should not matter - the final price to create a ring of sustenance and invisibility should be the same regardless of whether you were starting with a ring of sustenance or a ring of invisibility.

So, you have:

Ring of Sustenance: 2,500 gp
1st-level Pearl: 1,000 gp
2nd-level Pearl: 4,000 gp
3rd-level Pearl: 9,000 gp

The most expensive item is the 3rd-level Pearl, so we start with that, and everything else gets a *1.5 multiplier.

3rd-level Pearl: 9,000 gp
Ring of Sustenance: 2,500 gp * 1.5 = 3,750 gp
1st-level Pearl: 1,000 gp * 1.5 = 1,500 gp
2nd-level Pearl: 4,000 gp * 1.5 = 6,000 gp
-------------------------------------------
Total Item: 20,250 gp

Now, if you wanted to adjust the pearls to their nonslotless price (but retain the "can only return a spell you have actually memorized and cast" limitation), you get:

Ring of Sustenance: 2,500 gp
1st-level Pearl, Slotted: 1,000 gp / 2 = 500 gp
2nd-level Pearl, Slotted: 4,000 gp / 2 = 2,000 gp
3rd-level Pearl, Slotted: 9,000 gp /2 = 4,500 gp

The 3rd-level Pearl is still the most expensive item, so in the end you get:

3rd-level Pearl, Slotted: 4,500 gp
Ring of Sustenance: 2,500 gp * 1.5 = 3,750 gp
1st-level Pearl, Slotted: 500 gp * 1.5 = 750 gp
2nd-level Pearl, Slotted: 2,000 gp * 1.5 = 3,000 gp
---------------------------------------------------
Total Item: 12,000 gp

Note that there are no "incorrect slot" costs in Pathfinder.

I'd probably go with the first quoted price, because it's less fiddly to calculate, but I suspect the second one might be more accurate.

Top right side of pg 144 of Core Rulebook:

Extra damage over and above a weapon’s normal damage
is not multiplied when you score a critical hit.

What does this mean?

It should say "extra damage dice."

So, for instance, let's consider a flaming two-handed sword +1 in the hands of a moderately strong person. It has a 19/x2 critical range. On a normal hit, it does:

2d6 (the two-handed sword's base damage) + 3 (+2 Strength * 1.5 for two hands) + 1d6 (Fire) (Flaming property)

=

2d6+3+1d6 (Fire)

On a critical hit, damage dice over and above the normal damage are not multiplied; they're just added once. So, with a x2 critical, this weapon and wielder will do:

(2d6+3+1d6(Fire))+(2d6+3) =

4d6+6+1d6 (Fire)

Make sense?

Quick notes on otherwise good advice:

To enchant Bane, your caster level must be at least 8th. You also need to have prepared Summon Monster I for creation.

You do not need to be a CL8 to create a Bane weapon. Rather, the average CL of a randomly generated Bane weapon is at least 8.

The skill check you'll be making is Craft (weapons). The DC is 13 (5+CL8).

... or Spellcraft. And note the effect of the weapon's CL on the crafting DC.

You've already addressed the "daily vs. single skill check," so I won't say anything else about it. :)

On another note, there is a difference between divine potions and arcane potions.

On another note, there is no such thing. ;) Potions, like wands and staves, are neither arcane nor divine. Just like Boots of Teleportation are neither arcane nor divine; they're just magic.

Scrolls, on the other hand, contain arcane or divine spells because they're spell completion items - but they are the exception.

Specifically, all divine casters can make curative potions, but only the bard and alchemist (so far) can make arcane curatives.

This is irrelevant; don't worry about it.

what would the total addition to the DC of brewing the potion for an alchemist, since inflict spells are not on his list, and are not considered arcane spells by anyone.

The bolded part is the only important part.

Would he have to add 5 (for not having the spell)

This. The arcane / divine split is, in this case, immaterial.

Now read the rest of the sentence that I quoted:

What's your point?

After the round in which he cast the spell, he can't make free melee attacks anymore - which, incidentally, is exactly the same situation that the guy not using his sword to deliver Shocking Grasp is going through.

After that, you need to take the attack action to deliver the spell - and the first sentence says you can still deliver it with your sword.

Patryn, your last point is actually incorrect; the last sentence of that paragraph was taken out with the 3rd printing errata. The caster level of the item sets the DC of the Spellcraft check, but the creator does not need to meet the caster level him/herself. Otherwise, nobody would ever make Pearls of Power 1 (caster level 17? I think I'll just make 9th level Pearls, thanks...).

I understood that to mean that if a 3rd-level caster made a pearl of power, he'd make a CL <= 3 pearl of power; he could not make a CL 17 pearl (and the DC is set based on the desired CL of the item; for most items, the CL doesn't matter too much).

Also, I grabbed the text from the PF SRD; I wonder why that hasn't been updated with the errata. But thanks!

I have a question; say a small sized character hides in a barrel with a shortbow. Can the character use an attack / move action combination to fire and then hide down within it? Would the barrel provide full cover while hiding within it as such?

Depending on the size of the barrel:

Move action to stand from prone (going from full cover to partial or no cover)
Standard action to attack
Free action to drop prone (gaining full cover from the barrel)

He'd just want to be wary of enemies with ranged attacks readying their actions to shoot him when he pops out. :)

For comparison, a +1 flaming sword would have a caster level of 10, and for that the caster level WOULD be a prerequisite.

A +1 flaming sword has a minimum caster level prereq of 3, not 10 - but you couldn't make it until you were a 5th-level caster, anyway, because you need that many levels to take Create Magic Arms and Armor.

So, for that sword, the prereq definer is the enhancement bonus, which is 3 * Bonus.

Effective bonuses - like that which the flaming property adds - do not count for creation prereqs (unless they actually have a prereq of "Caster must by Xth-level or higher," which flaming does not; instead, CL 10 is the standard example CL for a randomly-generated flaming [whatever], just like every other item).

He therefore has no chance of failure or of making a cursed item.

And, as continually mentioned in these threads, the wizard is the one optimally designed for creating magic items, but he not the only one doing so. Clerics with low Int can also make items; they have a much higher chance of failure than Wizards. It's like complaining that a high Strength Fighter with Weapon Focus and Weapon Training doesn't miss a whole lot.

Hi, I'm having some problems understanding item creation rules myself, somewhat related to this question. Do I understand correctly, that e.g. in order to create a scroll of teleport, you need to have access to the teleport spell,

Yes.

but you can create boots of teleportation without either access to teleport spell, or even being high enough level to cast it, just by taking +5 to your DC? That is provided you have the time, the money, the Craft Wonderous Item feat and are able to make the roll?

Yes. But, keep in mind, the caster level is important for the Boots of Teleportation; a lower CL on the boots reduces the teleport's range (100 miles / CL). Note that:

For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself. In this case, the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level).

So, you cannot make CL9 boots if your own CL is only 5.

First off, there's no such thing as a "divine potion." Potions, like wands and staves, are neither arcane nor divine. There is no difference (bar minimum caster level) between a potion of cure light wounds brewed by a bard and one brewed by a cleric.

Second, potions are neither spell trigger nor spell completion items. They are "use-activated" items.

Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). the DC to create a magic item increases by 5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.

So, in order to create a potion, you must "know" the spell you are putting into it. Fortunately, that is a common prereq which can be sidestepped by increasing the DC by 5, per the rules on meeting prereqs.

So, for instance, in order to create a potion of cure light wounds (CL 1), you need to meet the following prereqs:

Brew Potion
Cure Light Wounds known

You must also be able to hit a DC 6 Spellcraft or Craft (Alchemy) check (5 plus Caster Level).

You must, per the rules on meeting prereqs, meet the Brew Potion prereq. The spell knowledge prereq, however, may be met or ignored (which increases the DC by 5). So, if you can hit a DC 11 Spellcraft of Craft (Alchemy) check, you can brew CL 1 potions of Cure Light Wounds without the knowing the Cure Light Wounds spell.

Actually, such threads do serve a purpose: they point out the absurdity of the arguing poster's behavior and, by publicly showcasing it in a humorous fashion, shames them into stopping such ridiculous behavior without having anyone feel like they've been personally attacked.

You might think that they do, and you may even want to accomplish this, but they never actually do this.

Seriously - you know this from your many, many years of posting on the internet.

Get over yourself.

Aw. And here I thought we were friends.

Let the exploits begin.

Protip: They don't exist.

Or, if they do, they're not meaningfully more powerful than anything else going on out there. Otherwise, let's see some. I just showed you how one particular claim of cheese was not particularly substantial, so let's address the others that you think are so heinous.

But first - in clear, unambiguous terms, what are they?

*happily munches on a bucket of popcorn*

These sorts of posts need to die in a fire.

They add absolutely nothing to the discussion at best, and cause a cascade of "Passes RD some butter" me-too posts cluttering up the thread at worse.

Yeah, it's just like a shield bash...

Except that a heavy shield for a medium character does 1d4 damage instead of d8 or d10, plus whatever special abilities or bonuses your magic weapon has. Sure.

So ... it's worth +2 to +3 damage, on average?

And if you're shield bashing, wouldn't you have a spiked shield, making it a 1d6 damage to start with, making the difference +1 to +2 damage?

What's a standard feat value for damage ... +2 for Weapon Spec?

Sounds balanced to me.

That does not mean that the developers intended for you to be able to [...] do sword-sword-board

Why not?

It's not particularly different from sword-armorspikes-board, and you can do that without any extra arms.

A wizard deciphers a scroll and discovers it is a divine cure light wounds spell. He could then write it into his spellbook spending 10gp on an ink and ruining the scroll for scribbles on one page of his spellbook that do him or no one else any good.

He can't do that, actually.

A wizard can only learn new spells that belong to the wizard spell lists.

CLW isn't on the wizard spell list, so he can't learn it, and can't copy it into his spellbook.

The rest of your post, though, is good stuff. :D

For the purposes of this discussion, which is about the fundamental nature of magic and the potential differences or lack thereof between "divine" and "arcane" magic, whether it is more difficult to cast a scroll than a wand is completely immaterial.

Then why did you ask the question?

You can do it. This whole "wizards can't use cleric scrolls" thing is bogus, they can. And clerics can use wizard scrolls. All they have to do is make a "Use Magic Device" check.

UMD is a way around the normal requirements. A wizard does not need to make a UMD check to use an arcane scroll of Protection from Evil. He does not need to even make a Caster Level check if his own arcane caster level is equal to that of the scroll or higher.

A wizard does need to make a UMD check to "fake being a Cleric" if he tries to use a divine scroll of Protection from Evil.

Nowhere in the RAW have I ever seen it stated that a Protection from Evil scroll you pick up in a magic store has to be identified as "divine" or "arcane."

Then you need to get your eyes checked.

The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only usescrolls containing arcane spells,[/b] and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his class.)

To record an arcane spell in written form, a character uses complex notation ... If the magical writing is a scroll and the reader can cast arcane spells, he can attempt to use the scroll.

Only characters who have the spell (in its divine form) on their class spell list can cast a divine spell from a scroll.

To use a spell completion item safely, a character must be of high enough level in the right class to cast the spell already.

A scroll holds a spell, which can be either arcane or divine. Ergo, there are divine scrolls of Protection from Evil, and there are arcane scrolls of Protection from Evil.

It is up to the DM to determine whether any particular scroll is arcane or divine when the treasure is placed. PCs who create scrolls determine which it is by virtue of their class; a multiclass Cleric / Bard can create both arcane and divine scrolls of Cure Light Wounds. A wizard could not then scribe an arcane CLW scroll into his spellbook, because the spell is not on his class's spell list.

thebluecanary wrote:

Patryn of Elvenshae wrote:

On subsequent rounds, however, you can make a normal unarmed strike attack to deliver the spell's effects as well as your unarmed strike damage. This attack is made against your opponent's normal AC, and if you miss, the spell stays held.

Is that true? I thought if you missed with a touch spell the spell was lost?

nope. you hold the charge and can try again on your next attack (AoO, or next round)

Yep - ranged touch atack spells generally can't be tried again (and usually can't be held), but melee touch spells can be held forever (or, at least, until you accidentally touch something! :D ).

I've just created a Monk/Sorcerer who specializes in touch spells for a new campaign. However, the question arose can he make unarmed strikes while holding a touch spell, and gain the effects of both the spell and the unarmed strike damage?

Absolutely you can. It even says exactly this in the section on "Holding the Charge" in the spellcasting rules.

The trick to remember is that on the round you cast the spell, you can make a touch attack only as a free action to deliver it. You cannot combine an unarmed strike with casting a spell (without a special ability that says otherwise, like the Magus class's Spellstrike ability).

On subsequent rounds, however, you can make a normal unarmed strike attack to deliver the spell's effects as well as your unarmed strike damage. This attack is made against your opponent's normal AC, and if you miss, the spell stays held.

Patryn of Elvenshae wrote:

markofbane wrote:

Wands are spell trigger items and scrolls are spell completion items; they have different threshold requirements to be able to use them. Scrolls have more stringent requirements to use.

... including Caster Level requirements.

So you are saying a rogue can't use a scroll?

Not without "faking" a Caster Level, no.

If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell's caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell's caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll's caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap (see Scroll Mishaps). A natural roll of 1 always fails, whatever the modifiers. Activating a scroll is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and it provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.

Use a Scroll: Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you must have the scroll's spell on your class spell list. Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. The DC is equal to 20 + the caster level of the spell you are trying to cast from the scroll. In addition, casting a spell from a scroll requires a minimum score (10 + spell level) in the appropriate ability. If you don't have a sufficient score in that ability, you must emulate the ability score with a separate Use Magic Device check.

Scrolls get harder to activate based on their caster level for UMD (and non-UMD) users; the same is not true for wands.

Wands are spell trigger items and scrolls are spell completion items; they have different threshold requirements to be able to use them. Scrolls have more stringent requirements to use.

... including Caster Level requirements.

Am I correct in assuming that he's only granted this extra attack when making a full-round attack action?

That's correct! :)

Under optimal circumstances, taking that extra attack applies a -2 penalty to your other attacks that round.

That penalty does not apply if you only make one attack on your turn, and it never applies to things like AoOs.

It appears that the DC for creating a Belt of Giant Strength +2 is the same as for creating a Belt of Giant Strength +6. Is this correct?

If the caster level is the same between them (and it can be), then yes, the DC is the same.

The *cost*, however, is not.

So, as stated, could I use Vital Strike with the level 19 Fighter ability Unstoppable Strike?

"At 19th level, a weapon master can take a standard action to make one attack with his chosen weapon as a touch attack that ignores damage reduction (or hardness, if attacking an object)."

No, you cannot. Unstoppable Strike is its own standard action, and therefore is not used with the Attack action, and therefore does not mesh with Vital Strike.

All of these spells are foiled if the player "attacks". If "the Attack standard action" was not an "attack", that means that "the Attack standard action" would not foil any of these spells.

Sorry, that's wrong.

The Attack standard action includes an attack.

Ergo, taking the Attack standard action breaks those spells.

Ergo, you're still wrong.

Please quote the PRD to define this "attack" (non-action).

In the PFSRD, you have the Attack standard action, which comes in various flavors (melee, unarmed, and ranged).

The description of the Attack standard action says "Making an attack is a standard action." Note that this is no different than the language for, say, activating a magic item: "activating a magic item is a standard action."

Or, in other words, "Making an attack is a standard action" applies only to the Attack standard action.

It has to, because you also have thinks like:

Touch Spells: "Most spells require 1 standard action to cast." "In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action." "Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack" (Here, an attack is a free action.)

Charge: "Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action." (Here, an attack is part of another action, not an action in and of itself.)

Full Attack: "If you get more than one attack per round [...] you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks." (Here, multiple attacks are part of another action, not actions in and of themselves.)

Attack of Opportunity: "These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity." (Another not-an-action attack.)

Cleave: "As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach ... and can make an additional attack ..." (Here, up-to-two attacks are part of a standard action.)

These are all things which are not the Attack action, but which include attacks.

Ergo, "attack" and "the Attack standard action" are not the same thing.

EDIT:

And to be technically clear: Vital Strike is not a standard action in its own right. Vital Strike is an ability that happens when you take the Attack action, which is a standard action.

Thus, if you had a different ability that said "When you take the attack action, you gain a +3 bonus to attack rolls," both it and Vital Strike would apply at the same time.

Rory:

Read my posts on why you're reading this wrong.

Spring Attack allows one melee attack action.

No, it doesn't.

This is the key distinction you are missing.

Spring Attack does not allow an "Attack action."

It allows "an attack." Just like an AoO allows "an attack." Just like Charge allows "an attack." Just like Full Attack allows "one or more attacks."

And, importantly, just like the Attack action allows "an attack."

This is a distinction which has existed since 3.0, which 3.5 and PF inherited.

There are many ways to get attacks. The Attack action is merely one of them.

Maxx is right on with the interaction of Vital Strike and Full Attack.

EDIT:

You do not have to decide to do a full round attack until after the first attack is resolved.

Actually, you've got that backwards.

You must first declare a Full Attack (full-round) action. Then, after seeing how your first attack turns out, you may change your mind and give up the remainder of your attacks for a move action.

You may not declare an Attack (standard) action and then, after seeing how that attack turns out, change your mind and give up your move action to gain additional attacks.

This is an important distinction - reviewing the TWF rules will show why.

Vital strike does not say it is a standard action, but an attack action.

Incorrect.

Vital strike works "When you use the attack action."

The "attack action" is a specific standard action.

It is not a generic word for any attack; attacks are not actions at all, but are rather the result of other actions and non-actions (e.g., you can make an attack on an AoO, but an AoO is not an action; you can make an attack as part of a charge, which is a full-round action; you can make multiple attacks when you take the Full Attack action).

So, no - they don't work together.

Spring Attack is a full-round action in its own right, and Vital Strike only works when you take a specific standard action.

Honestly I would say neither. Maybe concealment for Small creatures.

... and difficult terrain.

**********
********BB
*******BCC
*****XOAAA
*******BCC
********BB

Pushing your opponent "straight back" would encompass any of lines A, B, or (A-)C.

You would not be allowed to push him along line D, below.

*********D
*********D
********D*
*****XOD**
**********
**********

Patryn of Elvenshae wrote:

B0sh1 wrote:

Overall, Arcana are mediocre but there's more coming with Ultimate Combat.

Really? Where'd you see that?

From the UC product listing.

Thanks! I'd missed that before.

Thoughts?

My current (16 Dex, 16 Int) Magus has, so far, not taken Combat Casting, and I think I'll be able to avoid it, since my Caster Level will advance faster than my spell levels do (vice a wizard, who is much closer to parity).

I did, however, take the Focused Mind trait for the early bump to concentration checks.

I have, on occasion, dumped my attack bonus to gain a +3 bonus on my concentration check, when I really, really, really needed a spell to go off this round and I couldn't (or didn't want to) 5' step away for some breathing room.

There was one time where I failed 4 or 5 defensive casting checks in a row, but the dice gods come for us all, on occasion.

Elsewise, careful movement and a good AC (chain shirt, high Dex, shield spell) has obviated most of the AoOs I'd've suffered.

You're overlooking a significant detail here. :)

Take the item's price in silver pieces - in this case, 500.

Your progress in one week's worth of work is your roll times the DC. Let's say you could hit a DC 25 when taking 10. In one week, then, you'd make:

DC * Check Result = Weekly Progress in SP
25 * 25 = 625 SP of progress

625 is greater than 500, so it takes you a little under a week to make a single dose of antitoxin.

Overall, Arcana are mediocre but there's more coming with Ultimate Combat.

Really? Where'd you see that?

It is not an action at all.

It is not an "attack action," which is a specifc brand of standard action.

E.g., if something says, "In place of an attack, you may ..." then you can use it on an AoO. If something says, "When you take the attack action, you may ..." you may not use it on an AoO (or as part of a full attack).

I just learned this today: "The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks."

If included, that belongs on the, "Been that way since 3.0" list.

Is it also correct that Scorching Ray victims do not get a saving throw unless they have Spell Resistance?

You never get a saving throw vs. scorching ray. Spell Resistance is different entirely, and is rolled by the person casting the spell, not the person being hit with it.

Also, I'm a bit confused about item damage and magic.

Generally, this stuff won't come up in most games, so you don't have to worry too much about it. :)

Is the touch being delivered successfully by the spellcaster the same as failing a saving throw?

No, it is not. Scorching ray cannot damage carried items; fireball, however, can.

When a monster has 3 attacks, for instance 2 claws and a bite, are the 2 claw attacks primary attacks and the bite a secondary attack? I am having trouble figuring this out.

It depends on the type of attack. For instance, bites and claws are always primary attacks (unless the specific monster entry tells you otherwise).

Note, though, that in order to make an attack with more than one natural weapon, you need to take the Full Attack action (this goes similarly for characters with swords, etc., who also usually need to take the Full Attack action to attack more than once on their turn).

The Monster Manuel doesn't seem to clarify which attacks a monster has as primary or secondary.

Check the attack bonuses - most of the time, they'll either all be the same (in which case they're all primary or secondary), a few will be off by 5 (in which case the lower ones are secondary), or by 2 (in which case the lower ones are secondary and the monster has the Multiattack feat). If they are different from that, it'll take a bit of investigation.

Also, if the druid is on a horse, can the horse get all 3 attacks as primary, or just the 2 hooves as primary and the bite as secondary. Can the horse even make these kinds of attacks if the druid is riding him?

Most horses are not trained for combat, and therefore do not have a bite attack.

The horse can make those attacks if he has him, even if he's being ridden, so long as the horse doesn't move on its turn (i.e., the horse has to take the Full Attack action, too).

If the Raptor was knocked prone, he still would get his 3 attacks,albeit with -4 penalty to-hit, correct?

Yep!

To clear up "Favored class," the player who chose druid as his class and doesn't have any plans to take on another class can still choose Druid to be his favored class, correct? Meaning every level up, he gets +1 HP or Skill rank.

Yep - if you're never going to take another class, it would be silly to not pick your current class as your favored class!

I'm assuming the APG broadens the use of favored class points beyond Skills and HP?

Yes, it does.

When taking on a Prestige class: If a level 6 Fighter took on a Prestige class, is he then level 6 Fighter, Level 1 Prestige class?

Yep - just as if he'd taken a level in Rogue, he'd be a Fighter 6 / Rogue 1, and in total a 7th-level character.

Does this mean a character has a CLASS level limit of 20? For instance, can a multiclassed guy be level 18 monk, level 15 rogue, and go all the way to 20 monk/20 rogue?

Yes - but it'll take a long time to get to epic levels (those greater than 20th character level), so you won't have to worry about it for a long, long time.

First, I agree with ProfPots - this isn't a retcon, this is Peter Parker getting bit by the spider. :)

A ret-con would be more like, "Oh, actually, you were always a Magus."

That would actually be my preferred way of handling this (and its the way I handle nigh-100% of character retraining / rebuilding issues in my campaigns).

That being said:

I'm requiring that he go with a Blade Bound Magus

Is the player okay with this?

I mean, I love the Magus class, but I'm not 100% sold on any of the archtypes being great trade-offs.

The confusion with the example is that MM does 2-5 damage which is its variable number. Where Ray of Enfeeblement only has 1d6 as variable and the plus is a static number that increases with level.

There is no meaningful difference between 1d4+1 and 1d4+1/2 levels.

They both generate random, variable, numeric ranges - the first between 2 and 5, the second between 3 and 6 (for a 4th-level caster).

This is a weird change that PF made.

So assuming I attack with the claw/claw/bite I'd have to substitute the armor spike for one of the claws since I still need 1 free hand to to attack with.

You don't need a free hand to use armor spikes.

Pathfinder was able to seize the moment when 4e face planted with most players. But it also inherited the overly detailed crunch of 3E. The APs were great and I ran lots of PF but as others have mentioned beyond level 10 things start to get annoying to track and once you start building spreadsheets to run an NPC it tends to lose appeal.

I didn’t come to 5e right away but when I did it was clear they had built a much better fantasy RPG with a more rules-lite approach that suited most players and DMs far better. I was quite happy to bid the days of 3E and PF farewell. Due to the lower amount of prep needed also got back to running more home brew adventures and campaigns.

I have a lab called Fafhrd. Yet to get a cat though to complete the pair.

Ran the very last session of Jade Regent, I quite like books 5 and 6 as written but inserting a kaiju battle while the opposing armies fight was a pretty epic way to end this campaign.

The Five Storms (down to Three Storms for the final battle -Jade Regent, Oracle, and Anam) had control of the Tarrasque. The party after completing the quest at the Emperor's Isle were also blessed with the ability to summon a CR 20 Imperial Sovereighn dragon using the Amatatsu Seal.

So the final battle occurred outside Kasai triggered by the summoning of the Tarrasque to stomp out the rebels.

It more or less eliminated the walk thru of the palace in book 6 but I inserted some challenges around the army and included the Raven Prince attempting to assassinate Ameiko on the eve of the battle. It made for a more fluid last half of book 6, my group seemed to enjoy it.

Ah the inevitable Lovecraft was a racist therefore anyone who enjoys his writing must be racist. (OK well if you enjoy Horror at Red Hook maybe)

The notion that Paizo has a conflict of interest (i.e. a company with evident progressive direction) mining Lovecraft (and others) for inspiration for a game is spurious. I don't think the good folks over at Chaosium are continually worrying about the yellow peril or miscegenation either.

Looking forward to the AP and all of its Lovecraftian tentacles.

Jade is a lot of fun (my group is about to start book 6), and the beginning of the AP should be fun for a group that just wrapped up Rise. Like any APs it takes some tweaks to tailor it to your group.

I would also highly recommend Curse. Still hands down the best AP published.

I just finished running this AP a few weeks ago, and we certainly added a few steampunk-ish touches throughout. Re your adjustments,

1. 25 point buy is too high even for a low magic approach. I wouldn't suggest going any higher than 20.

2. Commonplace guns - if you're sticking to muzzle loaders should be just fine (thats what we did). Once you get into revolvers things can get out of hand pretty quick.

Re low/limited magic, it all really depends on your approach. As your using the slow XP progression the campaign could well end before any high level hijinks begin, that would be the simplest. As for explaining it, the campaign doesn't need to be set in Golarian just Ustalav. Hell Ustalav could be in Ravenloft if you wanted.

XP is not worth the headache. I suggest using hero points for the purposes of rewarding players. Does the same thing with far less work.

Another recommendation for Harrowstone, as a solid halloween dungeon crawl.

Other books from Carrion Crown could work very well as a stand alone:

-Trial of the Beast
-Wake of the Watcher

Other adventures:

Hangman's Noose (Paizo 3.5)

Skinsaw murders (Book 2 in RotRL) provides some great halloween material.

And of course another recommendation for the original Ravenloft (or the 2e House of Strahd remake). Avoid expedition to Castle Ravenloft.

Brinewall Legacy makes great use of dire corbies. I think that might be a first.

Yep I'd agree with Alzrius, the character being from Lamordia makes perfect sense. If you can give the player the Lamordia gazeetteer to read so he can pick up on the Lamordian persepective (basically a very materialist and condescending attitude toward magic and well all of the other countries in the Lands of the Core). Players while free to come up with the concept of their character should also strive to use material from the setting as a basis and an arrogant Lamordian fits this very well.

On the other issue about being a jerk to gracious hosts well the player is making choices and consequences result (it doesn't mean to go out and punish the player but sounds like he may very well get the cold shoulder from a lot of society)

Book four in JR is one example. The hunting lodge in Book three of CC is another good one (it covers the setting of the lodge, the host of characters visiting complete with brief backstory, personality and secrets (including a memorable red herring at least for my group). It also contained some other information re clues that would help their investigation. Lastly, there were a few trigger events included that provided some response to the party's actions as they snooped about.
While I ended up going through that material relatively quickly depending on the group that easily could have provided 2 sessions worth of material.

Re Umbranus:

1. I do agree with you re the gothic horror themes though that is more of an aspect of being a pathfinder game. The REH Solomon Kane stories or the old universal monster movies are probably a better analog - pulpy gothic horror.

2. The lead to help the beast should be grounded in the notion that the museum was broken into and a relic stolen. The adventure as written doesn't necessarily tell the GM to play up the possibility of the Way's involvement which I think is where your disconnect comes from (and truthfully this is an issue for the next two adventures). What got my players interested in this was I gave enough hooks to make them believe that the Way was behind the robbery and that either the beast (or his creator) was in league with the way or a patsy but either way investigating the crime would lead them to the Way.

I do think a sandbox AP similar to Kingmaker but centred around court intrigue, espionage and diplomacy would be a good framework to punch up the RP but still leave the field open for groups that want to get their hands dirty (though they might have to put some thought into how to cover their tracks).

Absalom, Brevoy and Taldor or Cheliax come to mind as potential settings.

Though I'd be happy with a module along these lines as well (especially given the new format).

Domains could be associated with saints of that religion thus providing some rationale (e.g. Saint McGee famous for his ocean faring pilgrimages)

It depends on the AP and the group. From the APs I've ran a quick overview:

1. CoCT - nothing signficant save cosmetic changes for History of the Ashes re the setting (made the Shoanti homeland more Mongolia in winter with volcanoes)

2. Carrion Crown - wove alot more plot points to make Petros more of a presence throughout the campaign. Also books 5 and 6 went through a lot of changes mostly taking cues from what interested the players.

3. Savage Tide - again mostly unchanged save the last three adventures were greatly condensed, I think we left off around 15th level.

I don't really see what you're getting re the proliferation of supposed DMPCs. Many of the APs have an ongoing supporting cast which is a good thing in my mind. The only case I can think of is perhaps Ameiko in JR. Really its up to the DM and the group how they use friendly NPCs. Sometimes they're just like Q; you get some fancy gear from them, others provide some intelligence and if the group is inclined maybe some extra muscle.
I'm running JR and I often use the caravan NPCs in the first few books as one would volunteer to go with the "away team" but I think its pretty clear the campaign is about the PCs. Granted my group helps that Ameiko is one of the group's PCs. So while I haven't read RoW I did sub for WoTR and did notice again a 'supporting cast' that by certain DMs could be twisted into a gallery of DMPCs but I don't think Paizo presents that as a default assumption.

I didn't see anyone else post this in the thread so thought I'd provide a link to an excellent article from Steve Winters.

Saying no

Banning or saying no to certain propositions can be just as important as saying yes to a player's suggestion. Balancing those can be tricky though and as other posters have pointed out its important for a DM who is banning or limiting options to explain why upfront and then also listen and heed the players inputs or take on those ground rules.

For the record, I now do just simply ban the summoner class and while I'm fine with gunslingers they'll never come across advanced firearms.

As a DM, one thing that bugs me is when you have a setting and ideas about the campaign, whether it be an adventure path or a custom made game, and a player shows up with this whole back story that doesn't fit with that. Mr. Real Roleplayer has his brilliant concept and lengthy back story and he doesn't care that it doesn't work with your plans. He's such a brilliant thespian that of course you'll alter your campaign so his character can have his epic arc. And then he'll have the spotlight and all the other players will be second stage to him.

I'd almost rather have the casual players without much background who just go along with your game because that's what the game is. If the players can be a little more invested, work out a short back story that fits your game, and go from there, that's the ideal.

I'd concur with you it doesn't help when a player comes up with a concept entirely disconnected from the rest of the group or the premise. (i.e. insisting on playing an elven ninja in a viking campaign). One of the things that has entered talk in rp circles the last several years is borrowing the always say yes concept from improv theatre. What is often forgotten is that for this to work the player also need to yes to the DM (i.e. ok guys I'm running a gothic horror themed campaign set in this particular city, the players respond by building characters that have a stake in the city and somehow play to the premise). As a DM I don't want an overly long background but I do want the player to build something based from the context I've provided.

More Tian Xia would be great. My group is just getting through Forest of Spirits and the oriental setting is a blast.

Viking AP would also be great.

Last thing would be a political/spy campaign with lots of court intrigue could be fun. That could be placed just about anywhere.

One thing is to integrate story into the dungeon crawl.

What is the party hoping to accomplish by exploring this dangerous site? Are they actively opposing the cult's goals or is this their first contact with them?

-Overall, I'd say its important to identify some specific objectives that the party is likely to accomplish by entering these tombs (i.e. learn more about the cult's goals, obtain some of the race's technology, track down a particular cultist etc.). The goals of the party are likely to shape how they go about their task (e.g. a rescue mission, heist, lore gathering etc.) and should inform you as to how to run the crawl and where you might want to insert clues either about your ongoing plot or providing further background about the cult and their origins. Libraries or archives of course make great info-dumps as does large scale artworks such as murals, tapestries etc.

So you have a set of underground warrens, the remnants of a long dead race from another planet and a cult of their descendants having pilfered some of their tech.

I'd second Glutonny's suggestions of leaving some of the cultists active in the complex. Perhaps while they obtained the key item they were looking for there is a group doing mop-up or leaving traps behind to protect their find. They also make sense as your chief protagonist. If they know the complex and become aware of intruders the crawl could quickly shift from a simple exploration to a deadly game of cat and mouse as the cultists use traps, hit and run tactics to terrorize and eventually eliminate the party (that is of course until the party turns the tables by locating some plasma guns).

Constructs and machinery seem a likely theme given the interplanetary nature of the tomb.

What is the purpose of the 'dungeon'? Is it a crashed ship? An actual tomb or simply a storage facility for critters held in suspended animation? Or something entirely else? Again how does this complex relate to the greater story of the campaign?

Sounds like a fun session!

I can't wait for the revised Inner Sea Guide to come out that shows Golarian in a post-globster and wraiths setting.

Depends on the type of encounter you want but I often GM larger groups my usual bag of tricks include:

1) Lots of fodder/mooks. Can be more of a headache to run have sometimes pre-rolled or even rolled for them as groups (e.g. 6 minions get split into two groups of three).

2) I will sometimes max the hp of the monster (especially bosses, sub-bosses). Even for minions I'll generally increase them by 50%

3) Casters with abiltiies to control the battlefield (Black Tentacles is a good way to up the challenge in an encounter) and cast dispel magic are good for important battles.

4) My campaigns generally feature on-going villains so yes I do make use of the tailored encounter to target PCs but use these sparingly.

5) Ensure there's a good mix of opponents. I'm running JR and CC both campaigns feature particular type of monsters very often. So its important to throw them off a bit and dump a golem or aberration into an encounter every so often.

I just finished Broken Moon with my group. Its been so far but yes the AP does need some Gm work to massage things. I've tried a few low-workload changes and embellishments to tie things together.

-First off the format of the AP is yes here is the werewolf advneture, the vampire adventure, Frankenstein, wallking dead etc. Tell the players that so they know to expect some monster of the week stuff. It may not be the most unified but I think most players will appreciate the chance to deal with all of these different foes.

-Make Petros and his past an important part over the entire AP which pretty well means you have to connect

-I had the party meet and work with Petros' old adventuring party. The old party all hated and distrusted each other for some past deed that took the first 3 books for the players to unravel -

-Play up the Palantine Eye. Make them full members in Book 2 and use the Eye as the good guys. I played up the threat of a traitor in their ranks

-Play up Auren Vrood make him the BBEG for the first 3 books.

-Don't keep

So going into Wake of the Watcher:

-My feeling is to take out the Raven's Head as something the WW desires. It'll simply be an artifact the party can find. I'm leaning towards some bargain with the deep ones/mi-go to craft a mutant plague for the WW to use as a weapon. Only problem is the plague they create gets loose and is tied to Shub-Niggurath (hence slugspawn infeestations, mutations etc.). The party essentially walks into a failed WW plan and has to contain the danger and maybe stop a shipment of the plague from reaching Caliphas. The Mi-Go will be simply be a higher form of intelligent deep ones.

-Ashes at Dawn is the most problematic. I get the whole Ann Rice approach but I kind of just want to do Castle Ravenloft but Gallowspire is pretty big on the dungeon stuff. Also there really isn't a compelling reason for the party to help the vampires and let alone clear Ramoska from any wrongdoing. I will probably just work to play up the bloodbrew elixir and the rift b/w vampire elders who want to keep the status quo and the young upstarts. Which pretty well makes it like the Blade movie but I can live with that. In fact maybe I'll just have most of the court killed off by the young rebel vamps. Not sure about the tailor with the deadly scarf though... I'd consider chucking this adventure but I know the group is anticipating the vampire adventure so have to make it work.

-SoG looks just fine.

Hi all thought I would throw this out on the forum. So as per some other threads here and my own thoughts I've been making some changes to aspects of CC.

-The party has had a chance to meet and adventure with various NPCs that made up Petros' old adventuring party (Adivon, a halfing bard and aristocrat, a now disgraced paladin) and work with Kendra.
-Adivon is an adviser to the Prince (on supernatural, magical matters) and is well established in the royal court.

-I've played up Vrood's role to the point where the party considers him the chief antagonist of the campaign. The party has some idea that the components are for a powerful ritual possibly related to the Tyrant himself.

-My idea with Feldgrau is that it is actually a showdown b/w Vrood and Adivon. Vrood is planning on usurping Adivon and has rounded up several high ranking WW figures who might be a threat to his rule. By making a fiendish pact Vrood hopes to take charge of the WW and dispose of Adivon. Except that Adivon has realized this and is in fact directing the party to their confrontation with Vrood. Meanwhile Adivon is in town to ensure he snakes the ritual components from under Vrood's nose while everyone else is fighting in town.

So essentially the plan is the party will hunt down Vrood as in the module and dispose of him. Now I can leave it that the ritual components are mysteriously stolen (signs of a clever B & E, garrotted cultists etc.) and leave the party in the dark or have Adivon unmask himself arrogantly thanking the party for their help.

I would prefer the latter option as its good for a campaign to have a clear villain but I would think that the party knowing where Adivon is based would go straight to Caliphas after Broken Moon. Though I am thinking of having Adivon use his influence to make the party members wanted fugitives. Curious as to thoughts/suggestions. Thanks!

A barbarian doesn't need speeches.

A barbarian needs one-liners.

Learn from the best.

Now that Paizo's moving to the 64-page format for its modules, is there any chance of a high-level Bastardhall module in our future?

Would be very interested in seeing this too!

All very good advice. CocT was I think the best campaign I've ran, and the best of the APs I've read.

1. Be upfront with the players, the characters need to have a stake in the city. A motivation to want to save it. If they build this into their background they'll have much more enjoyment plus they'll also create some backstories that you'll be able to weave into the events of the AP.

2. Books 4 and 5 are good but I would suggest cutting it down a bit to keep the plot going forward. My group actually really liked History of Ashes (again it helped that we had two Shoanti characters who had a connection to 1000 Bones) Scarwall is a kick-ass dungeon but it is huge so it can be a bit of a slog.

3. I made the re-taking of the city a bit more epic as the party had worked hard to forge alliances with the Shoanti and Magnimar. Nothing like leading an army on the field to say hey we're high level.

Unfortunately, I moved away and only ran CC as far as the ToB but my plan was to have Kendra be the

Courtesy of googleshng in the Hungry storm thread:

LAKE ROUTE:
To reach Bearleg Lakes: 96 miles/3 days
Through Bearleg Lakes to Old Magu Encounter: 260 miles/5 days
To Qopuk Ford: 64 miles/2 days
To start of Wandering Herd: 32 miles/1 day
Duration of Wandering Herd: 224 miles/7 days
END OF LAKE ROUTE (Paths rejoin here)

HILL ROUTE:
To Lost Lake: 256 miles/8 days
To Avalanche Ambush: 96 miles/3 days
To Cannibal Camp: 64 miles/2 days
To Fording Taraska: 32 miles/1 day
To end of HILL ROUTE: 32 miles/1 day
END OF HILL ROUTE (Paths rejoin here)

To Iqaliat: 128 miles/4 days
(Side note: 64 miles from rejoin point to Iqualiat/Unaimo route split, 128 miles from there to Unaimo, so at this assumed speed, if you want to head there first, learn the path is blocked and double back, it's an 8 day side trip)
To Dragon: 64 miles/2 days (3 days without a guide, so 96 miles for the scenic route apparently)
To Storm Tower: 704 miles/22 days (starting at Iqaliat, 640 from Dragon)
To Dead Man's Dome: 512 miles/16 days
To Ul-Angorn: 320 miles/10 days (224 high ice, 96 standard)
To/through Ovorikeer Pass: 160 miles/5 days
To Jaagiin: 224 miles/7 days
To Last Pass: 384 miles/12 days
Chased by Morozko: 30 miles/1 day (special rules for it)
To Necropolis: 48 miles/3 days (half speed in the tunnels)
To rejoin path/end of adventure: 160 miles/5 days

Bad Dms aside, if a DM pitches a concept for a campaign to a group (and assuming the group is interested) they should build characters that are geared towards that overarching concept (e.g. if the campaign is Greek myth then really don't suggest playing a samurai). As a DM I'm fairly open to suggestions even strange ones and yes there are ways to shoehorn character ideas into the most unlikely of settings but truthfully it won't be as fun for the player if they had said yes to the idea and built upon it. Its a collaborative game.

An example comes to mind from when I ran Crimson Throne. I gave the group the overall pitch of what the campaign was about and info regarding the city's background and Varisia. I lucked out and nearly all the players built interesting characters with an investment in the setting. And I'm not talking about extensive backgrounds in most cases just enough to gradually build and develop. Throughout the campaign I built on those backgrounds and wove them into a fairly well-tailored campaign. However, there was one player who wanted to play an elven ninja. I didn't say no though I did suggest playing a rogue instead even supplying some juicy hooks to do with the thieve's guild in the city. He wanted to play the ninja and because the concept really had no good way of linking to the city his character throughout the campaign sort of stuck out like a sore thumb (the other players certainly noticed) We made some attempts but they were I think obvious to everyone pretty shoehorned. Truthfully I don't think he had as much fun as if he had instead embraced the setting/campaign.

I think a good DM should present a sense of the world and an overall concept. Good players will pick up on those cues and make them their own. Then the DM follows suit and adapts/tailors the adventure and campaign to include those. No one is getting the short end of the stick but a DM usually has to make the first suggestion to get the ball rolling.

What makes a man turn neutral?
Lust for gold?
Power?
Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

When I ran this I was worried about it to but not having prepped anything else, I ran the encounter as is. It was a real blast and a memorable encounter. I used the wishes suggested, amazingly the party succeeded their Will saves save for the rogue who got the "I wish you'd go to hell". No one in the party had planar travel at the time. Not wanting the party to get derailed into a whole quest to go to hell I came up with something on the spur of the moment. The rogue arrived on an upper layer of hell on a ridge overlooking a great field where a battle was taking place. A single blasted tree was nearby where a man sat playing towers with the harrow deck.
The man greeted the rogue saying something like he had waited there for a 100 years the divninations being rather imprecise. The devil went on about how events in Korvosa would have a deciding factor in events in hell (gesturing to the battle below). My thoughts were that a faction wanted the party to succeed to reduce the chance of Lorthact gaining power. Long and short of it the rogue was planar travelled back (after the party defeated Trif back in Korvosa)

It was a bit of a deus ex but it actually seemed to fit.

For my two cp, CC is one of the most non-railroady of the traditional APs. As the adventures are all investigative they provide a wide freedom for the party to tackle the problem in each adventure. The railroads are prominent in the links b/w each adventure (as the AP is on the whole a bit of a road-trip). However, players while they can be lured by the promise of treasure should strive to find a reason why they're concerned about the supernatural and things that go bump in the night. Make it personal and you'll have more fun. CC is a strong AP on the whole.

Hi all as per the thread title was wondering if there were any folks that care to share their experience with this AP (assuming you have ran/played through most or all of it). I have all the volumes and after a move am considering running this for a group that I have gamed with before. Regarding the group:

1. Casual gamers, not big into rules, optimization etc. Hoping to play 2x a month.

2. Prefer heroic, swashbuckle style

3. I plan to ignore the caravan subsystem

4. I plan to ignore the whole relationship points and just RP it.

Jade Regent seems a better fit for this group than say CC and I've never ran an oriental campaign before. Though I am tempted to take a look at LEgacy of Fire since its on sale. So feel free to share any overall comments regarding the AP, any areas that needed reworking?

When I ran CoCT I was surprised at how important it seemed to my players. They really liked the Harrow point system and the the harrowings were often brought up when they talked about making choices as how to proceed. Zellara was a great NPC to have (though you have to walk the fine line b/w helping and pushing the players along). So harrowings were great fun. My main advice is not to worry about the details of how it is 'supposed' to work. You have three columns, past, present, future. The cards on the top row are largely beneficial, the middle row uncertain, and the bottom row opposition. You know the adventures, the NPCs so you have a pretty good grasp on the 'future' (and hidden backstories). Simply interpret the cards in that light ignoring the whole misaligned thing. I found it too much of a headache. Brush up on the suggested interpretations of the cards but don't stick to them if they don't work for you (or if you can't remember just take inspiration from the picture and go from there). I found the harrowing to really work requires a degree of improvisation. It also helps that I usually had in mind three key things I wanted to cryptically suggest to the players and I would weave that into the reading. The other option as was suggested is to stack the deck. Its the foolproof way but I think improv-ing it is more fun for the GM and the players will pick up on it.

And CoCT has some great villains,

Port-a-Lucine. A beacon of culture, sophistication and civility on the coast of the Sea of Sorrows. A gleaming jewel all alone in the night. Sure it looks pretty. The handsome opera stars, the well-heeled merchants, courteous nobles, studious scholars, musicians, painters.
Its all very civil.
From a distance.
It doesn't take long to see the dirt under the nails though. Most have little pleasure from these cultivated pursuits. The longshoreman grunting under his heavy load, the family with little to eat, the desperate gambler, or the feverish anarchist wandering the streets. Surviving each day is enough.
Surviving, well, that might be enough for the sans-culotte. But not for you. Not for a DeSuis.

You remember the strange missive you received. Decorated with hellish symbols and grinning imps was an invitation to the grand re-opening of the old gambling house, the Golden Goblin, only a stone's throw from the old territory by the docks. The invitation declared the event to be called Cheat the Devil and proclaims, "win not only soul back but also take the devil's treasure! But beware, only the strong of heart need venture forth!" Below it in a cramped but legible handwriting is another message;

"Come to the opening. I would like to discuss an important business opportunity."

Helene duSuis

Helene duSuis. Recently nominated to the Council of Brilliance, the ruling body of advisors under the Governor General Marcel Guignol. Even in the salad days, the DuSuis weren't on the Council. She's now heading up public works. You're not sure what the story was how she survived the Night of the Knives. You recall something. Caught in a fire but escaped. There were many lives lost that night, hard to keep track of them all.

Impelled you have arrived for the gala evening.

Just inside the main doors, two sultry beauties scantily clad and wearing faux bat wings, devil horns, and tails play the part of alluring succubi. Both are employees of the Gold Goblin, and they cheerfully register contestants for the tournament and process entry fees. Armed guards stand nearby to either side of an immense treasure chest into which each patron’s entry fee is added. The guards are on hand to not only protect the money, but to prevent any overzealous admirers from trying to dare the infamous touch of a succubus.
Beyond the registration table is the hall’s game floor. Dozens of gamblers, waitresses dressed as succubi, and bouncers mill about the room, wandering amid tables offering various games while dealers shuffle cards, roll dice, and spin wheels. Moving through this throng are a dozen more of the barely clad, bat- winged vixens serving drinks and batting coal-black eyelashes flirtatiously for tips. In the center of the chamber is a short podium atop which sits a massive gold chest affixed to the floor by similarly gaudy chains. On either side of it stands a bare- chested bouncer in the exotic garb of some foreign sultan’s court. Each stands with muscled arms crossed over his chest and with a naked scimitar of prodigious size tucked through his waistband. High above them, from the hall’s cloth-draped ceiling, hangs a brass birdcage within which crouches a small, bat-winged, pointy-tailed devilish creature that sulks as it gazes over the room and occasionally rattles the bars threateningly.

Ok guys so I know this is rough but to get it out there so if folks want to start generating characters. Hope to get started by the coming weekend.

Dementlieu Campaign
Player friendly overview of Dementlieu http://ravenloftsd.wikispaces.com/Dementlieu
Player friendly overview of Port-a-Lucine http://ravenloftsd.wikispaces.com/Port-a-Lucine
Map of Port-a-Lucine
http://www.fraternityofshadows.com/Mausoleum/Port-a-Lucine.jpg
Map of Ravenloft (so-so)
http://www.gryphonhill.com/core/colormap.html

Setting Notes – I’ve added more countries, ports of call to the Sea of Sorrows. Liffe, Vechor and Zherisia are found to the west. The sea extends down the coast to the southern cape of Nova Vaassa where it joins the Nocturnal Sea.
De Suis Family History
The story of the DeSuis family is in Dementlieu, an unlikely one. A family of crude dockhands, longshoremen turned to shrewd if ruthless merchants and quartermasters. Over the course of three generations they became one of the more powerful mercantile companies in Dementlieu controlling trade routes to neighbouring Lamordia, Mordent and to the island nations of Liffe, Blaustein, and Ghastria. The family’s control was dependant on corruption, intimidation and even piracy but they were careful to keep their hands clean as respectable businessmen.
Twenty years ago, for valiant service in the Falkovnian invasion, the DeSuis were even elevated to the ranks of the nobility. The house prospered and flourished. The family fortune and their power continued to grow even in the shadow of their unsavoury business practices. The DeSuis were often the targets of disdain from many of the old families and there was always the long and hateful rivalry with the Renier family. Despite these obstacles, the DeSuis seemed untouchable. But then, quite suddenly a court scandal and an a coordinated series of raids, and assassinations brought the family to their knees. Their wealth was all but stripped and many of the family’s holdings confiscated or stolen. The DuSuis’ noble title was suspended by the Council of Brilliance and the surviving members were once again faced with hard life on the streets of Port-a-Lucine.

Anton DuSuis is credited as the founder of the house. DuSuis was not from Dementlieu but arrived on a ship from an unknown land across the Sea of Sorrows. He spoke of unimagined lands beyond the mists. Some even hinted he possessed arcane powers. At first he was but a tough but canny dockhand that began organzing and rigging games of chance. Anton quickly established himself as an entrepreneur and began DeSuis Trading Company. Recruing dock toughs, Anton began to establish a profitable control of the docks until running afoul of the Renier clan. The Renier were a family originally from Richemulot. They are distantly related to the ruling Renier family but seem to have little or no support from the relations. The Renier gang attempted to move in on the DuSuis territory but were rebuffed. Anton murdered one of the Reniers stabbing him in a gambling hall brawl. Ever since, the families have clashed with increasing hatred.
Anton passed away and control of the family passed through three successive generations. The DuSuis control of shipping and trade grew only rivaled by a few other companies including the Renier and Sturmanddrang companies. During the Falkovnian invasion, Claude DuSuis led troops against the Talons, Drakov’s elite forces and succeeded in a series of decesvie victories. Impressed by his deeds, the Governor-General granted title to the family.
After Claude’s death, the family was headed by Jean-Paul DuSuis, his eldest son and champion fencer. Under Jean-Paul’s leadership the family reached its height of wealth and power. The DuSuis shipping grew in profits, the DuSuis established a colony on the island of Markovia, lavish art commissions for the opera and artists were given. Invitations to the Governor-General and theD’Honaire estates were regularly given. The DuSuis name was on everyone’s lips. Jean-Paul had a reputation for derring-do and was considered to be a ladies man. In its success the family may have sown its own seeds of destruction. The old families became resentful of this nouveau-riche clan of upstarts. The Renier clan remained a visible threat and thorn to the family.
After two years there is still much mystery around the Night of the Long Knives. Jean-Paul was arrested in the Governor-General’s chambers with the Lord’s wife. He was accused of seducing her in part of a larger effort to unseat the Governor General. At the same time, a series of brazen robberies and assassinations were carried out. Ships were lost at sea and contact was lost with the Markovia Colony. Jean-Paul’s trial had only started when he fell ill with Sri Raji fever and died in his jail cell. Within a week, the DuSuis title was revoked and most of the family fortune seized by the Council of Brilliance. Jean-Paul’s wife, Lenora hung herself in the family manor. The surviving members of the DuSuis family left the country or went into hiding in Dementlieu. A few remained defiant and set about to rebuild the DuSuis shipping company and swore to clear the family name. The family suspects the Renier played a hand in their downfall and certainly the Renier fortunes have steadily improved with the removal of the DuSuis. Yet, many talk that such a campaign is beyond the ability and resources of the Renier that there was a silent partner behind the scenes pulling the strings. The DuSuis estate remains unsold and empty and within the past year it has acquired a haunted reputation.
Last year, after the unfortunate drowning death of Justine Malken in Parrault Bay, a surprise nomination to the Council of Brilliance was announced. Helene duSuis, one of the leading members of the family was appointed. Helene’s position as advisor have not reinstated the family but it does provide a toehold. A few whisper that Dominic D’Honaire, the Governor-General’s Prime Minister has expressed great interest in her and the two are often seen together.

Character Generation
Your character can either be a member of the DuSuis family or a loyal retainer of some kind (perhaps your family has served/worked with the DuSuis for generations). The DuSuis are human though some speak of elven blood in some part of the family.
Pathfinder 15 point buy
Each character takes a level of Aristo, Warrior or Expert.
Races: Any (see above re family, retainers)
Classes: Any (Core, UM, UC, APG)
Ones that fit the campaign well would Rogue, Alchemist, Oracle, Witch, Bard, Fighter, Cleric, Sorceror, Wizard, Gunslinger
Traits: Pick one social trait from http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits
Campaign Notes:
-mostly urban but with some seafaring.
-will emphasize social, investigation more than combat (but there will of course be that too)
-Your mobsters with a grudge in a fancy decadent city.
-Alignment obviously tends to the scoundrel. Evil can work but within reason (your still a party, and the Dark Powers are watching)

The question is: Why wouldn't you be encountering it a lot, karkon? It's only one feat without any prerequisites. One feat that practically negates movement related AoO's when the GM plays that way--something that PCs can't do even with delayed actions, I might add. Most monsters and NPCs can easily spare one feat for such a huge advantage.

For my two cp, I would say that encounter is totally fair and actually a neat thing for a band of brigands to have (a well trained cohesive team of pros rather than clumsy oafs).

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Yep and that is pure sandbox, which is fine but is nothing like an AP and would not work in that line at all.

No it isn't. In a sandbox you have no set goal other than those the players come up with. In this you would have a goal like "stop the rise of Karzoug". It's sandboxish, but not pure sandbox.

Have you checked out Conquest of the Bloodsworn Vale? That sounds more like what you're describing. Its sandbox-y but still with a goal, some set pieces connected to the overarching problem.

And for what its worth declaring your opinion is objective. Well, really? I mean of course people are going to get their back up when you state things in such a fashion.

Am preparing to run CoCT in the near future and having been mulling over the Queen issue. Bearing in mind, I haven't seen the next few installments one thing that has been bothering me a bit is the Queen. It might be from knowing roughly the arc of the path but she seems all too obvious as the real villain. Her reputation, history, attitude etc. makes her the #1 suspect for the king's death, and the troubles in the city. I'm thinking of ways to conceal her villainy, maybe even make her appear as a noble queen, or at least the damsel in distress. That way when she is revealed to be the demonic creature that she is it comes as a nice sharp twist. To quote Sanjuro "The worst one is beyond your imagination".
The principal problem is that the rioting begins as the citizens take umbrage to the idea of this gold-digger taking the throne. Also the framing of the painter is an all too obvious ruse and even the briefing given by the PCs by the Watch should set alarm bells ringing as to the Queen's role. So the principal problem is how to reframe those events without major surgery to the adventure? Any thoughts?