Search Posts
hmm, I'm not seeing anything that forces the quick action to be the action lost with slow but i'm also not seeing anything that says specifically which action you would lose. So yeah best practice would be to lose the restricted action before any of the others. Thanks.
I must be missing something in the book that talks about this. From what I'm seeing you can cast slow on someone who is quickened which would stack since they are separate conditions that don't mention interacting with the other. Normal: 3 Actions
If anyone can direct me to the relevant text that points to the interaction between these 2 conditions that would be great otherwise I guess this is how it works.
Loved all these write-ups great job. That's a lot of hero points though per scenario. Maybe I was too restrictive with them. But it never really felt like my players did anything above and beyond to earn more than a few every now and then. What was the criteria you used for giving out hero points?
By RAW just standing on the other side of the enemy with the ability to hit that enemy grants flanking. However, when I imagine flanking visually it's the enemy having to guard themselves from threats it knows are there on both sides of it giving it the -2 to AC. If the enemy isn't aware of something standing behind him why would he be flat-footed against the person they could see. Now with sanctuary it's kinda the same issue. How can you be proving to be a threat to someone with out showing the obvious intent of planning to hurt them. Like how do you cause the enemy to have to be weary of you without having your weapon out with the appearance to strike. But the RAW makes it simpler for the table.
As for assist breaking sanctuary, that's an interesting question and really hits a grey ground when looking at it. Depending on the way you describe the assisting it could both break it and not break it. Giving advice like it's left side is unguarded wouldn't since your action isn't directly influencing/forcing the person your assisting to harm the enemy. But "pocket sand" or miming at the enemy trying to force it to look at you instead would be more of a hostile action. But 90% of the time I would probably say it wouldn't. Last thing, Draco you pulled in 2 arguments on hostile actions that we're being sarcastic against my points from the other thread. Just wanted to point that out.
The action isn't. He isn't using the action in a way that directly or indirectly causes harm to something. Because the demon teleported into the room he teleported into the room and is still invisible. Because the demon teleported into the room on top of the gnome the gnome was crushed and the demon is visible Because the caster told his summon to attack the gnome the gnome was attacked Because the caster summoned a fireball at the gnome the gnome was attacked Because the fighter fired his bow at the gnome the gnome was attacked Because the ranger told his animal companion to bite the gnome the gnome was attacked Because the druid's full-grown animal companion used it's 1 action to strike the gnome without being commanded the gnome was attacked but the druid is still invisible.
The intent where in you want the enemy to be aware of you and afraid that you are there. That movement would be hostile. You move up to the enemy weapon in hand ready to strike. Not hostile, until you make an action to harm. Ex a strike. You move up to the enemy deliberately making noises until you stop right next to the enemy. Hostile, since you are attempting to use your presence to threaten the enemy. The demon in that part is just teleporting to get into the area not as some "gaze upon my glorious form punny mortals". If the PCs at that point aren't showing any threat or any way of preventing the demon from doing what it wants to do, it has no reason to be hostile towards the PCs unless it just really wants to murder some hapless gnome.
I don't have a harsh gm not do I consider myself one. Granted I don't hand my players free win/do whatever you want games. I aim for my players getting a sense of accomplishment as well as ensuring that the rules are constant for them. And as with most cases shown on these forums, a lot could be better clarified so everyone else can see the plan for each part of the game that Paizo has ---- It's the action and intent behind the actions that tell if something is a hostile action. The action of teleporting is not hostile. So it makes sense that's what the demon does to get into the room. The action of movement is also not hostile.
The action of setting a trap (to cause harm I'm assuming) would probably yeah. That's all nice but we aren't talking about PF1 The action of holding a weapon is not hostile. The action of using the weapon is hostile. If the intent of your movement is to be threatening to the enemy then yes that's hostile. The action of movement is not hostile. The action of firing a bow is hostile.
Edit to respond to Xenocrat:
In this edition it probably is a trigger for breaking invisibility. By summoning the creature you spend three actions to summon it and give it 2 actions. Unless you are specifically summoning it with the intent for non-combat things to happen then it's going to be a hostile action. The breathing "example" is ridiculous to even bring up. You're wanting to play extremes for your argument. Breathing is not at its core hostile unless you are doing it to a candle. Just like talking at it's core is not hostile until you make it. If you accidentally trigger a trap it's not a hostile action since you had no hostile intent behind the action. It was an accident. If for some reason you are standing in an empty room while invisible and can send a magical message telling someone to attack someone else. You are now visibile in the room. You took a hostile action.
Invisibility breaks when you take a hostile action to cause direct or indirect harm. Ordering something to attack something else is causing indirect harm. Due to your actions something was harmed. However, summoned monsters will attack your enemies to the best of it's ability. Same with the original question. This action is not your characters action and so doesn't apply to your character (at least reading from pf1) But you can direct it to attack certain creatures (hostile action) Now I think the real question lies with... By spending an action to maintain the summon and giving the creature two actions, knowing that the creature would use those two actions to harm something, is that causing indirect harm? Gut answer is yes as per the above. Due to your actions you are causing something else to be harmed.
So much anger If a ranger came to me as a GM and asked for Quicksilver Mutagen id decline. Why would they get that without a reason for having access to it? I recently had a player ask if he could take Globe of Invulnerability on his wizard. Uncommon spell. However he is an abjuration specialist so I gave it to him. If he was an evoker or enchanter than no I wouldn't let him have it. Your example of ring of wizardry would be an easy yes to wizards assuming the current area they are in, if during a campaign, would resonably have that type of item. If it was during character creation. Than again easy yes for wizards, hard no for non casters.
Again, as others have pointed out, Mutagens are uncommon now. So all you have to do is talk to your GM like an adult and say "hey, I'm a bomber focused Alchemist and my character has been researching ways to modify their body to achieve better accuracy with my bombs. Can I take the Quicksilver Mutagens?" Unless your GM is a dick, if they are just leave the game not worth it, they will let you.
Hey Mark, how does the survey data separate itself for these types of situations? Hindsight but it seems it would have been useful to have a question for each part that asked if the adventure was run strictly by the book or if parts were modified. If marked as modified it would prompt them to write out what was modified in the adventure. I'm wondering how many false positive/negative results were received based on table varience/Homebrew. Ex: people not using updated DCs for Mirrored Moon but still using errata past that change.
This isn't a "flaw" with the system but differences in Table Play. If you have a table like OPs that likes bringing in low level characters to higher level games you will have issues with games that don't "support" that playstyle. I would recommend using a system that supports the playstyle of your table. For example, if you want to play a supers game I would recommend something like Masks or Wild Talents. Or if you want to be a group of vampires play Vampires. If at your table you have a specific niche that you all love, such as bringing level 1 characters into level 12 games after your character dies, than use a system that supports that niche.
Intimidate in general is fairly strong so far. Scare to death being an easy instakill that doesn't really punish in action economy makes it even stronger. What was the rogues intimidate bonus for this? I'm curious the odds of them triggering the critical effect against same level enemies.
Looks like your group has recovered from that first struggle with this part and that's great. Though I do kinda need to question why your group was struggling so much exploring hexes with the new DCs. The new DCs are a 30 Perception check and a 27 Survival. With minimal investment into those skills you should have a +11 for both of those, Trained (9) prof + Wis mod (2). Now the ranger has had 4 skill increases and so probably made survival expert at the least and so have a +12 but wisdom is an important stat as well so their modifier is probably a +3. For a total bonus, before any magical intervention, of +13. Meaning that they can make the check on a 14 on the die. Aid is only vs a dc 15 (typically) or 20 (particularly hard) using an appropriate skill and modifier for the roll. Now aid can only be applied once successfully as the bonus wouldn't stack so you would have the next highest modifier person roll. Now even the minimally invested person I described above should be giving aid with a 4 on the die (typically) or a 9 on the die (particularly hard) Also i don't believe there is anything that says you can't aid the aider giving them a better chance of critically aiding adding a +4 circumstance instead of a +2 circumstance For a mundane total around +15 before applying any magic or feats to the roll.
Basically.. yeah almost everything you said and did would invalidate your information in a testing environment. But I can break it down for you a bit more. Moving creatures between fights can quickly and drastically change the CR of that encounter. The balance by adding a single enemy could change a fight from reasonable to impossible. It is explained how each fight happens and when they happen, ranging from 5-10 min between events. Your wife mobilizing the students is great a totally something that is listed in the part. They are willing to help with skills but are not combatants and won't be of direct use in a fight. It also states in the book that the undead fight the PCs because they are a threat to them. However if two or more PCs have the dying condition than the undead not currently engaged will move towards the basement where they are aware the professor is, due to Ramlock reaching out to Illvoresh through the professor and telling him where the professor hides. So they wouldn't just randomly move away from the fight unless they were sure they could. Letting the cleric get an extra 5 ft to open the door was definitely houserule and as you said yourself had her chair been closer to the door she could have made it but it wasn't so she didn't. Letting the PC have two property runes is also going to skew your results. And that's why you should always check your players character sheets prior to game.
You don't have to use the spell if you don't like it or can't understand it. But from a game balance perspective it's fine.
Ok. Mathmuse please don't fill out the survey for this part. You are drastically changing points that Paizo is looking for in this part. Still fill out the other surveys classes/races/open assuming you didnt just houserule everything away.
But the casters who cast those spells also had to expend higher level slots to prevent you from dispelling them. If the spell is 1 higher than your dispel you should have about a 25% chance 15+ to dispel it assuming casters of equivalent levels. For each level the spellcaster is higher than you that chance does decrease since their spell DC increases but the opposite is true the other direction as well. Now for the adventure it would be nearly impossible to dispel the "warning" spell because of who the caster of that spell was and also to point out to the players that maybe casting spells in the middle of a party without permission is probably a stupid idea. For see invisibility and true seeing it makes sense again why they function the way they are. See invisibility is a very specific function it sees invisible things. True seeing would let you see vs any illusion or transmutation but they put a roll requirement on it to prevent it from just always working. So if you wanted it to basically always work you prep it at a higher spell slot. Spells are no longer learn and forget. You have to think about what you want to learn, what to prep, and what level slots you want those spells to take.
@mathmuse "The vampire spawn typically can’t enter a dwelling unless invited. If someone mentions this to the vampires,they eagerly reveal that during one of Oscilar’s episodes, the vampires’ master commanded the professor to announce they were always welcome in his home." Pg43 at the end of the description of event 2.
So you gave your players free barricades. Let them move couches and tables with telekinetic projectile. Gave them free knowledge of the enemies using an NPC with no stats. The players perfectly set up an area where the gahsts leap put them in the middle of more objects so they had to leap again. And they had lookouts in every room to be aware of the wights breaking in through the windows. Oof I complained about Colette killing parties but at least they bothered to try and follow the Playtest. I agree with Starfox that some situations have solutions that might not be directly pointed at in the book. However I never would have let them force march the camel's 12 hours to get to the mountain. Even with the time limit the few days it takes to get to the mountain are nothing and an organized party would be able to get in and out well before the Night Haralds even get near.
How tall were these barricades that the ghasts had to spend two leap actions of 15 feet each to get to the party? The vamps had spider climb. Why didn't they just climb over the barricades instead of having to go well out of their way to use the walls? How did the wights do? Considering they break into the dining room and the library, thus are past the barricades and the chandelier as well as summon a poltergeist to help them, they should have provided ample threat to the PCs I don't recall seeing stats for Lucvi. How was she rolling recall knowledge checks and did she get slaughtered by the wights since they break into that room specifically? As for Brain Boy. Telekinetic Haul has a range of 120 ft. If your players never barricaded the door then they were busted wide open by the second wave giving him ample room to move the barricades that's 15 ft into the room. He also has a direct telekinetic link to the professor and wants his brain. If your players are hiding in small rooms from him he could always go invisible, go after the professor and not deal with the party until after he achieved his goal. Lastly, just how much time did your players have to "prep" for the few zombies they saw in the lake? It takes 10 min for 1 person to barricade a 5ft square and between each wave is about 10 min for the first but 5 min after that. So to achieve this setup that they have they must have spent hours getting things in place.
The zombies are a small part of this section. How'd the ghasts, wights, shadows, vampires, poltergeist, and the brain collector affect the party? If they spread stuff around to limit movement they are also hampered by it limiting options. The poltergeist would have had a field day pelting them with things for example. Did they have the professor with them in this set up or was he in another room?
Its a 5% chance of being Extremely Lucky or Extremely Unlucky. The barbarian trying to crush a fortune cookie succeeds 95% of the time. The other 5% of the time something happens that prevents him from crushing it. Maybe it was positioned in just the right way that it wouldn't break. Maybe the barbarians arm twinged and they were too exhausted after devouring their meal it just didn't work. A level 1 NPC opening a CR20 Vault is so unlikely. Assuming a typical lock needs 3 successes that NPC is going to have to roll 3 20's at the least to open the lock. Now every time they crit fail the amount of successes goes down by 1 as well. So they are going to need to get 20's more than they get anything else which is statistically unlikely. And if they did. Maybe the gods smiled down on this person and gave him the information they needed to succeed in opening the lock or it was just blind luck. Now even after all that in the bold sections it even mentions if you don't have the proficiency to achieve something you will still fail on a nat 20. And this lvl 1 NPC is not going to have the master proficiency required to pick a CR20 Vault. As well as they have mentioned that once you become so proficient or high enough level some tasks just become trivial which means you just succeed at what you were doing. Such as a lvl 8 character free climbing a Crumbling/slick/sloped cliff.
Thankfully there's a skill that let's you identify monsters and learn more about them. Which is a strong tactical choice to spend an action doing.
Yupp, something else that points out that the attacks are different than just a "fist" strike Looking at the styles I believe the reason you only can make crane wing attacks is because that style inherently gives you the +1 circumstance to AC. It also specifies how the character stands in the mode (on 1 leg and with arms in an imitation of crane wings) lastly, it's also called out in other things like monastic weapon so it's definitely a conscious choice by the developers to do it that way.
There's a difference between saying I run up and headbutt/kick/punch/knee him and I run up and Dragon Tail him. The stances attacks are specific additional attacks you can make while in the stance. You can be in Tiger Stance and still kick something you aren't stuck only being able to Tiger Claw them but those two attacks are different. One is a fist attack (1d6 B) and the other is a Tiger Claw attack (1d8 S}
He's saying that if the enemies are flanking you on the diagonals you are able to take a step and be out of range of both of the enemies. Which would require both enemies to have to move to regain the flanking where as if they flanked you from opposite sides or a straight flank if you step you will always be in range of one enemy and they wont both need to move to regain that flanking opportunity.
Hmm, after rereading deadly simplicity I'm not sure if it would. The issue I'm seeing (I was agreeing until this) is that deadly simplicity specifically calls out the fist weapon as increasing the damage dice to a d6 if the damage dice would be lower. Meaning the feat considers fists different then the other simple weapons, since the fist would've increased from a d4 to a d6 anyways. However, the paladin diefic weapon ability doesn't make this same claim and just states it increases simple weapons. But for stances, no it wouldn't increase those. The stance attacks are specific strikes that are not fist weapons and not simple weapons.
It's very cthulu-esque to have a lot of confusion especially when dealing with the mind-quakes as well. I can see it being annoying outside of combat (almost had the barbarian in part 2 wipe the whole party after looking in the mirror. That was fun though) but in combat as long as something hit you between your last turn and this one you attack that creature. If that hasn't happened then you roll the d4. But if you are already in a creature's face it has no reason to ignore you to force the 1d4 roll. Because the creatures don't have the knowledge that if they ignore you there's a 50% chance you don't try to attack it.
Druids can't use/benefit from magic fang anyways. Their forms are only enhanced by condition/circumstance bonus which magic fang is not. As well as the fact they can't cast spells while shaped. Monsters also work differently than PCs for their stats and I doubt we'll see a creature that needs magic fang for itself Paranoia makes you your own ally while affected with it because you are paranoid. You only trust yourself and no one else explicitly. You effectively become Gollum.
Wall of force breaks if any of it breaks. Wall of ice/stone/thorns can break in sections. Wall of fire/air can't break but can be moved through.
The other wall spells all hold the same AC/TAC. So it can't be an AC designed based on the invisibility. Even if the wall isn't a creature it's still invisible. Saying its invisible as a descriptor, which is the only way that word would be used anyways, means something. A petrified/paralyzed invisible creature would still have the benefit of the miss chance so why wouldn't the wall. Does the fact that something has sentience make it harder to hit while invisible?
I mean you would need to figure out it's there in the first place since it is invisible. Which I said the creature was aware of the wall. It's the fact that they have given the walls AC/TAC which means you have a chance of not hitting the wall normally. Add to that the fact that you can't see the wall and you have a flat check miss chance.
But the wall also has a TAC which is the difficulty to touch something. Also if you irl stuck someone in a room blindfolded them and told them to punch the wall 5 ft in front of them there's the chance they miss.
A wall of force is an invisible Wall. If a creature was to attack said wall after determining it was there would the creature have to roll a miss chance? My thought was yes because it is invisible and has ac/tac. A invisible creature that is sensed has a dc11 miss chance. So it equates to you swing at the wall and just misjudge how far or close the wall was to you.
Sure it's still actions the Giants are having to spend that isn't hitting the party. Which is successful to the goal of buying time. Hmm that raises another question about invisibility and miss chance. But I'll start a thread about that in the spells section to not derail the current discussion of player options for this encounter
Yeah but the others still don't know the full scale of the wall, they would have to move in a way to ensure they could get the cone off potentially moving well out of the way to avoid it or spending actions seeking to find the edges. Even if they used arcana as an action to identify the spell as wall of force they still wouldn't be able to figure out the spacing/positioning of it. And this really goes for anything dealing with a wall of force. Can be a really fun mechanic to use for boss fights and traps. Fight starts fighter sudden charges the enemy big bad. Runs headfirst into a wall. Meanwhile big bad is throwing fireballs just over the wall to hit another wall above the party catching them in the radius
Yeah the other walls tend to state the shape they come in. Vertical horizontal straight. Though wall of force is interesting because it lacks those descriptors. It has the distance across and height, as well as that it has no discernable thickness, but nothing else saying it's orientation other than that. Though a benefit of wall of force is that it's invisible so that could disrupt the Giants as well since they would have to determine the edges of the wall after first figuring its there in the first place. Giants move up all ready to invoke rune and the cones just smack into an invisible Wall and do nothing.
wall of stone would be since its 120ft long and you can put it in any border of a square vertical or horizontal.
Hmm, interesting find. My reading of it is that you aren't etching a rune onto the weapon but instead imbuing rightous might into the weapon itself giving it the property without requiring the rune (since it doesn't count towards rune limit on the weapon). So the weapon with "Blade Ally" is still getting the property or the ability. The property rune item, normally, would require it be etched into the appropriate weapon so the weapon gains that property. Either way again a few words to clean up the text would be appreciated here in the final version devs. But would love to hear a quick answer to the intended reading.
I don't know if you really even need to wait to get use out of it. The spells can be used right in the face of some of them from the start of the fight or even placing it about 15ft up in the air right in front of the party from the start would prove useful as the giants would still have to maneuver around it. Or even 10ft up as that would block most straight on line-of-effect from the "invoke rune" cone. However, if you are waiting to do it. Well that's why you have a front-line fighter, maneuvers around procs the threatening attacks-of-opportunity (there's no reason the Rune Giants would not use their reaction for this), casters now free to make wall and are setting everything up. Protecting themselves, the party, ensuring they can't just be mobbed by enemies.
I'm not being critical of Colette's running of Part 7 here. (I actually really appreciate the fact that they tried out different positioning of the enemies and tactics to see how that would affect the fight.)
At the end of the maze spell you have this section
When the spell ends, either because the target escaped or the duration ran out, the target returns in the space it occupied when it was banished, or the nearest space if the original space is now filled. It loses any remaining actions it would have on its current turn, but it can spend reactions normally. It was a section I missed in the spell too until looking at again it for my last response. Most walls are 60+ ft long and 20+ ft high. So even with spacing the Giants are trying to get to the PC's to attack them meaning they are going to get closer together. The wall will impede their movement a bit giving the party to buff/set up. Wall of Stone, especially, since it doesn't need to be placed vertically meaning you can basically make whatever shape you want out of the 120ft long 20ft high sections of stone. The examples in the book are a bridge or stairs so a creative party can really put that to some use.
Oh also walls super useful since you can't move straight up and down with air walk have to move 45degree angles put the wall in front of them they have to go up and to the side parallel to the wall before being able to cross over/under it.
Whoops forgot to add the ability modifier. Anyways so they need a 18 to crit succeed and get out in 1 turn or two 8s to succeed and get out in 2 turns So pop a giant out of the fight for at the least a round (the target loses any remaining actions though it can make reactions for it's turn) it has a 15% chance of auto escaping, a 50% chance of getting on the right path a 30% chance of no progress and a 5% chance of losing progress. That time difference should give the party plenty of space to turn the fight even more in their favor especially if the caster keeps using their turn to continue dropping other Giants into the maze while the fighter and the monk start taking them down. Oh also it would be easier for the fighter to stop trying to trick scroll cast fly and just buy a potion of fly.
There are still plenty of spells that can manipulate the battlefield in favor of the party; walls, auras and the like. Heightened haste would let the party gain some distance between themselves and the golems to buff and set up as well. Colette, I know you said the wizard was made quickly but I'm wondering if you had access to that characters full spell book as well. They only have the ones prepped for the day on the character sheet you posted. At that level the wizard would have about 40 spells in their book, not counting any extra gained through arcana. (8 1st level and 2 more each level after automatic) that's a fairly large set of options the player would access to. Also on that note some spells I see on the sheets that would be useful. Divine aura, foresight, polar Ray, disintegrate, chain lightning. Really useful spell of note would be maze. It auto transports so it wastes at the least 1 action of the enemy targets survival which the Giants only have at a +20 vs a likely spell DC around 34 meaning the need a 20 to get out on the first turn and two rounds of 14+ to escape
The issue with that is it would just trivialize too many high end encounters. The best course of action for any fight would be use shrink until success upon success you win basically, since you could at that point wall the creature into an area and plink it to death. Though I could see using shrink as a fun encounter surprise. Break into a wizards lab find a cute tiny dragon chilling in a jar. Let dragon out. Dragon walks into target square. Tiny blender of death.
There's really no combative benefit for shrinking allies it seems to be more for exploration/infiltration. Since it doesn't change anything for combat other than reach. If you were to be able to use it on enemies however, it would be so ridiculous against large or larger creatures because you eliminate their range. Kraken attacking with it's 60ft range? Shrink it and now it has to enter your square to attack.
Typically no, conditions of the same name don't stack unless specified. Such as with the Shadows "steal shadows" ability. The enfeebled condition from that stacks with other enfeebled conditions applied by that ability. What does happen typically is that the stronger/longer effect is the one that takes precedent. So creature A gives you enervated 1 but creature B gives you enervated 2 you are enervated 2. This does get a bit trickier with duration. Taking the above scenario, lets say the enervated 1 condition lasts 1 hour and enervated 2 lasts 10 minutes. The final result is you are enervated 2 for 10 minutes after which you are enervated 1 for 50 min (the duration left over for enervated 1). Otherwise if both conditions have the same value you apply the condition with the longer duration. All these rules can be found in the conditions section on pg 319 for reference. |
