Rake's page

Two quick questions: I became a Pathfinder Roleplaying Game subscriber this week. When will my tag appear?

Is there any chance my order will ship today (or just this weekend), so that I can get my PDF?

Thanks in advance.

PS. I love you Paizo. o_o

The feather fall solution is pretty excellent.

Does the "kit" include any tips / strategies for non-spellcaster villains?

Tell me what a 'villain escape kit' is.

Tell me now.

Hm, alright... I think I'll try to rearrange the scores less optimally (and maybe ditch or downgrade the armor) to produce a CR 1 monster out of the trog.

Thanks for your time, James.

Thanks for all your help, everyone.

I hate to consider monkeying with CRs, but I'd be more inclined to do that than to just alter or mess with the advancement rules.

What CR would you say these guys are?

I'm merely asking what is an ooze made of. If it's flesh, then flesh to stone works. If it's not flesh, then they're unaffected.

All the Pathfinder oozes so far are described as being made of "slime" or "sludge" in their individual descriptions. Some, like the ochre jelly, even state that they dissolve flesh. By definition, these creatures are decidedly not made of flesh.

The above is a description of an ooze (one of the many) and i think its not subject to flesh to stone. But there are oozes that are made of flesh (rotten or not) and those are subject.The whole matter is confusing.

It's not confusing. Flesh to stone states that it does not work on creatures who are not made of flesh. Oozes are not made of flesh.

This doesn't make oozes immune to petrifaction, it just means they're immune to the spell flesh to stone.

The end.

The target line of flesh to stone says one creature, so this is up to the GM. Is an ooze made of flesh? If not, then all oozes should be immune to petrification, yet that's not listed under the ooze type.

Gaze attacks I agree, as the ooze type specifically lists immunity to gaze attacks.

The target line says one creature, you are correct; but that does not mean you could affect a skeleton or a stone golem with this spell.

As for all oozes being immmune to petrifaction, you are not correct. Any number of non-gaze effects exist that might petrify an ooze (gorgon's breath, cockatrice bites, a retriever's ray, etc). Flesh =/= "solid living mass". A tree is a solid, living mass - yet it is not made of flesh. Same goes for a water elemental.

Gaze attacks would not work, nor would stone to flesh; the definition of flesh specifically applies to human or animal-kindom tissue. An ooze (which is a kind of gel or mold) is not an animal, nor does it have muscle.

Any other petrifaction effect would work normally on an ooze, however (a gorgon's breath, a retriever's ray, repeated cockatrice bites, etc.).

It's not an elite array; I just followed instructions.

Step two says that when you add class levels, you modify the NPC's stats as follows: +4, +4, +2, +2, +0, -2. The advancement system specifically says that these modifiers are not meant to apply to creatures who gain NPC class levels (which I take to mean that they definately are meant to apply to monsters who gain PC class levels).

I appreciate the idea, but I'm not that kind of DM. :P

"If the player's can't do it, neither can I" is sort of my rule (though obviously, there are exceptions). We play a very by-the-book game, though, so I'm not willing to just make up whatever stats I feel that I want.

This isn't fourth edition, after all. :P

Seriously, though, is there anything that I am missing?

NPCs don't get a maxed HD for a class level? I did not know that.

Fixed. That leaves the trog with 24 (30 raging) hp and the youngling with 18 (24 raging) hp. That still leaves both trogs superior in virtually every way to their equivalent-CR counterparts.

So I'm statting up some troglodyte cannibals for an upcoming adventure. I'm following the rules for adding class levels to monsters to the letter.

I made the 'default' troglodyte a regular trog with one level of barbarian. This works out to CR 2 (base CR 1, plus 1 for a level of barbarian). It's a tribe of savage troglodytes who have completely descended into madness and cannibalism... so I figure even the young trogs should be dangerous little monsters. The Young Creature template is perfect for this, so I take my troglodyte barbarian and give it the template. The troglodyte youngling works out to CR 1.

Here are the stats for the CR 2 troglodyte cannibal.

And here are the stats for the CR 1 young troglodyte cannibal.

With that done, I compare these guys CRs to some same-CR baddies from the Bestiary... and boy do they look off.

To compare the trog to the sahuagin (both are CR 2, we will assume both are using rage / blood frenzy):

Troglodyte has more hp.
Troglodyte's AC is four higher.
Troglodyte has better saves (total).
Troglodyte has better to hit and the same damage.
Troglodyte has better CMB and CMD.
Troglodyte gets stench; sahuagin gets light blindness.

Now to compare the young trog to the lizardfolk (both are CR 1, we will assume the young troglodyte is raging):

Troglodyte has more than two times the hp.
Troglodyte's AC is three higher.
Troglodyte's total saving throws are eleven (!) points higher.
Troglodyte has better to hit, and better (or virtually the same) damage.
Troglodyte has better CMB and CMD.
Troglodyte gets stench; lizardfolk gets hold breath.

Some huge gaps there... and the trogs are even throwing away a feat apiece on Great Fortitude. So did I miss something when adding class levels, per the rules in the Bestiary? Is my math just wrong? And, most importantly, should I change their CRs, ad-hoc?

Oh, and mind you, this is not in any way a criticism of the Pathfinder ruleset. Thoughts and help appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Should I be compiling these in the original post?

I will eventually lose the ability to edit it, won't I?

Oh, and:

BM = Batman
EH = Eh...
LO = lol omg
VH = Violently Homosexual

Oh, and, of course:

BA = Badass

Duh.

I propose a game.

The rules are simple.

We create an alignment for every possible combination of two letters!

I will start.

Now GO!

FC = Fu_kin' Crazy
MB = Magnificent Bastard
SB = Sonofa B_tch
RA = Really Awesome
UE = Understandably Evil

Long story short, VS is a Standard Action and Charge is a Full Round action, so they are not compatible. Hopefully someone else can find a reference with a more detailed explanation for you.

Did the developers actually say that vital strike is a standard action?

I have dont this exact same thing with a character of mine. (2 shield fighter, caused a lot of drama on these boards but I love it, and had someone craft an awesome model for me two, he kicks ass.)

Interesting. Legit or houseruled? What's the build look like?

Fireball vs. Shout: Shout is meant to hamper spellcasters. It targets Fortitude, deafens enemies (which imposes a spell failure chance) and has a much more managable area of effect. Additionally, shout is verbal-component-only, as opposed to fireball's verbal-material-somatic, making shout much more convenient to use. Also, all damage types are not created equal. Very, very few creatures benefit from sonic resistance or immunity. Fire resistance, on the other hand, is extraordinarily common.

Fireball vs. Ice Storm: Comparing these two spells is almost silly. Ice storm creates a HUGE area of difficult terrain, which is an amazing crowd-control ability abd the primary draw of ths spell. If cast early and positioned in a narrow passageway, this spell can buy your entire party a couple of turns each (which is a BIG deal). The damage it deals (cold and bludgeoning, easily resisted) is a side-effect of the spell's primary function (crowd control). Also, it is worth noting that ice storm is a no-save spell, making it much more likely that the damage it does deal will get through to characters with Evasion.

Great, thanks!

Most characters recieve a +1 ability score bonus every four levels.

When applying PC levels to an NPC creature, do the creature's racial Hit Die count for the purposes of determining when it recieves these bonus ability score points?

For example, would a troglodyte (2 racial hit die) with two levels of barbarian get an ability score increase? Or would he need four levels of barbarian, like a PC without racial hit die would?

Scandal. I am shocked.

Does anyone know of a way to get the Bluff skill as a class skill without multiclassing?

Quick question: are Bluff and Sense Motive seriously not class skills of the witch? Is there a familiar that grants them or something like that, that I am missing?

I mean, c'mon. Bluff?

This might get a bit long, thus: spoilers.

So I was on the WotC forums, and I saw a thread called "What Book Should I Buy Next?". Being the helpful gentleman that I am (and not at all a troll), I replied, and the following exchange took place:

The next morning, all of my posts (my reply to the OP and my reply to the jerk who told me to sod off) were absent from the thread, and I had an e-mail from WotC Customer Service. Over the next several days, the following correspondence took place:

At this point, they closed the incident and changed it's status to "Solved".

So is it just me, or is this pretty funny? :D

Also: does "our processes are not fully transparent by design" sound like "we don't have to tell you" to anyone else?

Also, also: do I continue to harass the poor Online Response Crew? :D

What the title says (in particular, the 'floating above the ground' part). I really like the sound of this ability, but aside from letting me walk over liquids, this ability really doesn't tell you anything about what it does.

For reference:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
Lure of the Heavens (Su)
Your connection to the skies above is so strong that your feet barely touch the ground. At 1st level, you no longer leave tracks. At 5th level, you can hover up to 6 inches above the ground or even above liquid surfaces, as if levitating. At 10th level, you gain the ability to fly, as per the spell, for a number of minutes per day equal to your oracle level. This duration does not need to be consecutive, but it must be spent in 1-minute increments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------

At fifth level, I am floating six inches above the ground. Exactly what does this mean to my character? Obviously, I don't set off pressure-plates and some other traps... but do I still take falling damage? If not, do I land prone? Is this essentially feather fall?

I can probably walk over caltrops or ice without difficulty, but what about dense rubble? Light undergrowth? Do I still take penalties for moving up a slope? Is this ability even meant to help me deal with difficult terrain at all? The description doesn't mention anything about difficult terrain.

If I activate this ability underwater, do I float above the sea floor? Do I rise to the surface?

Can I still be attacked by landbound swarms (say, a centipede swarm)?

Do I gain height advantage against other creatures my size category?

Can I be tripped? If so, do I land prone on the ground, or do I float above the ground in a prone position?

It seems to be implied that this effect mimics the levitate spell in some way. Do I take penalties for attacking while using it, or does that reference only refer to my ability to float above liquid surfaces?

The ability says I "can" hover. Should I assume that this ability a free action to activate? Or, as a supernatural ability, is it a standard action to activate or dismiss?

So many questions. : /

The "Giant Creature" template, that is. Will this end up skewing CRs? Specifically, I am looking at advancing the Iron Cobra to Large or Huge size.

I'm assuming that no template is really meant to 'stack' with itself (no double-fiendish creatures, no double-young creatures, etc.). Should I 'advance' the creature, then apply Giant? Wat do?

Who is she meant to be fighting? Because by herself, she's dead round one or almost dead round one versus any number of PCs over 3.

The players in this particular campaign are new(ish) to D&D, but also pretty smart. There will be four PCs (around level 5 or 6 when they encounter this villain - one cavalier or fighter, one oracle, one wizard or sorcerer, and probably one inquisitor).

Three questions, actually:

1.) Does Lure of the Heavens allow a floating (not flying) oracle to ignore difficult terrain? This seems to be the idea, but is not stated.

2.) Does a 'floating' oracle with this revelation gain height advantage on attack rolls (as a creature standing on a small ledge would)?

3.) Does Lure of the Heavens prevent the oracle from suffering falling damage?

For reference:

Lure of the Heavens (Su)
Your connection to the skies above is so strong that your feet barely touch the ground. At 1st level, you no longer leave tracks. At 5th level, you can hover up to 6 inches above the ground or even above liquid surfaces, as if levitating. At 10th level, you gain the ability to fly, as per the spell, for a number of minutes per day equal to your oracle level. This duration does not need to be consecutive, but it must be spent in 1-minute increments.

Inflict spells for free - got it, thanks.

The daylight spell comes from her mystery, so I cannot swap it.

I'm going to be running an Eberron game in a couple of weeks, and I've started statting up some NPCs and dungeons. Among these is the first BBEG of the campaign - a noble drow elf oracle. I've finished the build, but I'm submitting it here for review (and perhaps pimping).

How's she look? She meeting her CR okay? Did I miss anything? Tell me what you think.

DOOMSAYER VER’VELLE
CR 8; XP 4,800
female noble drow elf oracle(f) 8
CN Medium humanoid (elf)
Init +4; Senses darkvision 120 ft., Perception +15
DEFENSE
AC 20, ff 16, t 14 (+4 armor, +1 shield, +4 Dex +1 natural)
hp 44 (8d8+8)
Fort +4, Ref +6, Will +8; +2 vs. enchantments
Immune magic missiles, magic sleep effects; SR 19
Weakness light blindness
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee dagger +5 (1d4-1)
Ranged javelin +10 (1d6-1)
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 8th)
constant – detect magic
at-will – dancing lights, deeper darkness, faerie fire, feather fall, levitate
1/day – divine favor, dispel magic, suggestion
Oracle Spells Known (CL 8th)
4th (4/day) – inflict critical wounds (DC 18), summon monster IV
3rd (6/day) – cure serious wounds, daylight, inflict serious wounds (DC 17), searing light
2nd (7/day) – eagle’s splendor, hypnotic pattern (DC 18), inflict moderate wounds (DC 16), silence (DC 18), spiritual weapon
1st (7/day) – color spray (DC 17), entropic shield, inflict light wounds (DC 15), obscuring mist, protection from good, sanctuary (DC 15), shield of faith
orisons – bleed (DC 14), guidance, light, purify food and drink, mending, read magic, resistance, stabilize
STATISTICS
Str 8, Dex 18, Con 10, Int 12, Wis 15, Cha 18
Base Atk +6; CMB +5; CMD 19
Feats Eschew Materials, Great Fortitude, Greater Spell Focus (illusion), Spell Focus (illusion)
Skills Knowledge (arcane) +5, Knowledge (planes) +12, Knowledge (religion) +5, Perception +15, Sense Motive +12, Spellcraft +12, Survival +12; Racial Perception +2
Languages Aklo, Celestial, Common, Elven, Undercommon
Gear +1 studded leather armor, amulet of natural armor +1, brooch of shielding, dagger, javelin, masterwork buckler, wand of cure moderate wounds (22 charges)
SQ poison use, mystery (heavens), oracle’s curse (tongues [Aklo, Celestial]), revelations (awesome display, guiding star, lure of the heavens)

Does anyone have the answer to this question? I need to know, too.

Soften Earth and Stone

School transmutation [earth]; Level druid 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Area 10-ft. square/level; see text
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no

When this spell is cast, all natural, undressed earth or stone in the spell's area is softened. Wet earth becomes thick mud, dry earth becomes loose sand or dirt, and stone becomes soft clay that is easily molded or chopped. You affect a 10-foot square area to a depth of 1 to 4 feet, depending on the toughness or resilience of the ground at that spot. Magical, enchanted, dressed, or worked stone cannot be affected. Earth or stone creatures are not affected.

A creature in mud must succeed on a Reflex save or be caught for 1d2 rounds and unable to move, attack, or cast spells. A creature that succeeds on its save can move through the mud at half speed, and it can't run or charge. Loose dirt is not as troublesome as mud, but all creatures in the area can move at only half their normal speed and can't run or charge over the surface. Stone softened into clay does not hinder movement, but it does allow characters to cut, shape, or excavate areas they may not have been able to affect before.

While this spell does not affect dressed or worked stone, cavern ceilings or vertical surfaces such as cliff faces can be affected. Usually, this causes a moderate collapse or landslide as the loosened material peels away from the face of the wall or roof and falls (treat as a cave-in with no bury zone, see Environment).

A moderate amount of structural damage can be dealt to a manufactured structure by softening the ground beneath it, causing it to settle. However, most well-built structures will only be damaged by this spell, not destroyed.

Scenario: I cast soften earth and stone on an area containing one or more creatures. Those creatures fail their Reflex saves and become caught in it for 1d2 rounds (lets say we roll one round). One round goes by (meaning I have cast the spell, everyone else has had a turn, and it is my turn again). The creatures are now unstuck... but they are also still in the mud... and as the spell description says: "A creature in mud must succeed on a Reflex save or be caught for 1d2 rounds".

So do they save again on my turn, when the 1d2 rounds of 'stuck' wears off? If not, are they just free to move through the mud (at half speed) for as long as they like? What if they leave the mud and re-enter it?

The first option makes the most sense, but seems very powerful. The second option seems more balanced, but doesn't make as much sense.

What do you fine folks think? (I am interested in the RAW and RAI, here.)

I don't think prone creatures would be trapped, as the mud is not that liquid. Think of a quicksand: being prone actually helps not to sink. A prone creature has its chest and hip level with their feet.

Wait, wait, wait, wait.

Are you suggesting that because quicksand says that a character sinks to chest- or hip-level, that being prone in quicksand is better than standing in it, because you wouldn't sink as much before your chest and hips were in the quicksand?

Well, first I would point out two things about the DC 50 example that you list:

1.) That rule is a D&D 3.5 rule, not a Pathfinder RPG rule; and
2.) That check is for lifting an object up to one size category smaller than yourself[i] (!) and then immediately [i]hiding it on your person (!), all as a single standard action. The task you describe is not the equivalent of that DC 50 version.

There absolutely are not supposed to be multiple checks to get into someone's pockets or bags, lift the item, etc.

The Pathfinder RPG says that lifting an item from another character is a simple Sleight of Hand (with a set DC for success) opposed by Perception (to catch the attempt). Reading the entry, however, it looks to me like a hand crossbow is just about largest item you can hide on your person, meaning that you probably could not hide the fact that you have just stolen someone's longsword. You could draw their longsword as a standard action (though this would probably require you to roll initiative), but not Sleight of Hand it.

Stealing a gem from a backpack, however? Sure thing. That's kind of what the skill was made for. Well, that and palming weapons (or components, or wands).

As for the paladin being distracted, our group has always ruled that a character is distracted if he is actively doing something other than standing guard. Idly sitting around the campfire? Not distracted. Searching the bodies of the monsters you just slew? Distracted.

The 3.5 rules were pretty clear on this point - the Pathfinder SRD rules are less so.

Oh, really? Acid no longer ignores hardnes by default?

I did not know that. So, wow. No more melting through doors with acid splash... excellent, and good to know!

On this note then, what are some things acid, cold, and electricity might do full damage to? Per the examples: fire to parchment, cloth, and rope; and sonic to glass and crystal.

Acid should maybe do full damage to parchment, cloth and rope as well. What are corrosive acids most effective at breaking down in real life?

Electricity and cold are harder to place. Hm...

So a situation similar to this came up in a game recently. Imagine there is a wall made of glass. Could you use acid splash, vials of acid, or other damaging acid spells and attacks to get through such a wall? How about a wall of stone?

Acid ignores hardness, dealing full damage to objects, yes?

So then - how is acid stored in vials? Are there specially treated vials for acid? If yes, how expensive is this treatment? Could you treat other things with it?

How could a pool of acid exist? By RAW wouldn't the acid melt through the bottom of the pool, until all the acid dealt its damage and was dissolved? Acid can melt a wall of stone, damage a golem, or deal damage to a stone object or weapon.

I realize these questions aren't game-breaking issues, and I ask them with a bit levity, but I am curious as to what the actual answers would be.

For example, would a lion animal companion get the racial bonus to hide checks in undergrowth that a lion gets? Would a hawk companion get a bonus to Perception checks? I cannot find anything that suggests that they would. Anyone have any idea?

Come to think of it, the hardness and hit points of the 'noose' might be a good thing to clarify as well.

Question: Are they just carrying all of this loot around with them? If so, how are they doing it without someone noticing the huge packs that are filled with gold, small statues and paintings, gems, etc?

That's a lot of Handy Haversacks and Bags of holding to be carrying around...

Their loot (illicit and otherwise) is on them, in Haversack-type items.

Exactly; I don't think the problem is giving out too much wealth, it's giving out too few XP to go along with it.

Giving out more XP for the assorted crimes and hits might help balance the XP-to-treasure problem a little bit. Maybe I should just award full "combat XP" for "duped" NPCs.

And again, they aren't geared out like combat-monsters. Mind you, they're definately more than capable in (and out) of combat, but they're not munchkins. Min-maxers maybe (in a sense), but not munchkins.

Are all the local thieves guilds just letting these guys come in and run the show? Where's their cut?

Are you charging a monthly living expense?

Are they getting XP for their nefarious stuff so they advance in levels when they steal/rob?

The PCs keep on the move and have good Knowledge skills, though I have done the "run-in with the local thieves' guild" plot once (one and a half times, actually) already. This is part of the reason the PCs keep on the move and change-up their identies and appearances from time to time.

As for living expenses, I have taken a cue from Shadowrun and started really paying attention to upkeep, but the cost of living is really, really cheap if you want it to be - and like I said in my original post - the PCs are living as cheaply as they can.

They are getting XP for their criminal activities, but less than they would be getting for slaying large groups of monsters for equivalent amounts of treasure.

I'm putting solid, value-appropriate defenses in place when it comes to robberies, but like I said - the PCs are built well for this, and they're a smart group of players. Their wealth isn't going entirely to maxing out their combat ability or making them invincible - a good bit of it goes to improving their skills and options when it comes to conning and assassinating, and to not getting caught. They're passably good roleplayers too. Still, I get nervous when I realize that (by my approximations), they have a little more than twice the wealth they ought to have.

So here's a scenario for you. Tell me how you would handle it (or scroll down to the last line for the 'too long - didn't read' version).

You're running a game for a group of mature players playing "realistically evil" and/or non-good PCs. The PCs run through a dungeon from time to time, and take on 'traditional' quests and adventures.

However, these PCs pursue their own goals as well, creating and pursuing opportunities to commit evil for profit. Clever cons and burglaries, assassinations, and so forth. Robbing a local baron's keep, kidnappings, the assassinating and looting of wealthy mid-level NPCs, conning or stealing from local merchants and caravaners, and so on.

The PCs are smart about what they do, and cover their tracks well. They keep alert, live cheaply, never staying in one region for too long, moving from township to township, kingdom to kingdom, changing identities and appearances from time to time. They operate like professional criminals and adventurers of ill-repute, and they do take the occasional dungeon-sweep or rescue mission (looting dungeons and collecting rewards to further augment their criminal income), and they do a good job of it all.

The problem, (if it is a problem at all), is that by targeting wealthy and profitible NPCs and creating and pursuing opportunities to steal, mug, and con NPCs out of their treasure, the PCs are advancing well beyond their wealth-by-level guidelines. Of course, they have to be very inventive and smart about doing so, and have put a lot of time (in and out of game) and feat-and-or-skill choices into doing so. They take bigger risks (albiet calculated ones) for even bigger rewards.

What would you do? Would you start jipping them on the dungeon-loot that they find in order to keep their wealth-to-level ratios more "by-the-book"? Or would you allow them to bend the wealth-by-level table over their knees and spank it because - gosh darn it - they're earing it with careful planning and savvy resource management?

Is it okay for characters whose goal is to get adventure this way and get rich (even by adventurer standards) if they can legitimately pull it off (without dying or getting run out of every city and kingdom on the planet)?

Some of that could be mitigated by using a heavy crossbow, using Vital Strike, and having Crossbow Mastery to reload as a free action, but it still will be less than a rapid/multi/full attack + Deadly Aim + SA. I would go with the bow and just live with the knowledge that you will do less damage, but hopefully you will also TAKE less.

Not bad... so: what is the best, cheapest, easiest, most reliable way for a rogue to generate concealment and cover with which to hide in (using Pathfinder material - no 3.5 splat)?

I dunno, nothing indicates to me that it's a one-round, one-shot, catch-and-release trap. I think the trap might be CR 1 because escaping is as simple as having an ally just cut the damn web.

I know it can be done, but could a viable build exist for a bow-or-crossbow rogue (as compared to, say, a two-weapon-fighting or spring-attacking rogue)?

The problem I am of course encountering is how to trigger sneak attacks past the surprise round and first round of combat. Generating concealment and hiding is an option, but not a very good one since full attacks and rapid shots are right out if I have to spend a move action to hide each round.

I am sure this idea is not a new one... has anyone given much thought to this before? What is the general consensus on the "ranged rogue"?

Sorry, should have been more specific.

The noose lists a CMB modifier, but no CMD, making it impossible for a PC to escape from it with a CMB check of his or her own.

Additionally, the noose entry doesn't specify what actions the noose takes if it 'grapples' an opponent. I assume it deals damage, but there is no indicator as to how much base 'unarmed' damage a noose can deal, or what its effective Strength score is.

The whole trap is sadly unusable as-is (sadly because it's a really cool and nasty trap idea). Any thoughts or insights, Mr. Jacobs?

Bump...

The fungus causes Constitution damage, but it is not a disease (immunity to disease does nothing to protect from the mold, per the description above).

As for stopping it, the text is very clear.

"A new Fortitude save can be attempted each round to halt the growth. Although immunity to disease won't protect against russet mold spores, the growth can be halted by remove disease and similar effects."

One Fortitude save stops the mold from growing (stops the effect, in other words), as does a remove disease.

Did it ever get the issue of the ettercap noose trap cleared up? I am referring to the incomplete trap listed in the Ettercap entry of the Bestiary. It sounds like a really cool trap, I'd love to use it.

If this issue is still unresolved, any help or interpretations James & Staff could provide would be appreciated! I am hoping to run a large ettercap encounter in a couple weeks.

THE OFFICIAL ANSWER: (...more or less)

If PCs were meant to know how many hit points a monster had, the deathwatch spell would be pointless. See below.

deathwatch[/i] spell description)]

"Using the powers of necromancy, you can determine the condition of creatures near death within the spell's range. You instantly know whether each creature within the area is dead, fragile (alive and wounded, with 3 or fewer hit points left), fighting off death (alive with 4 or more hit points), healthy, undead, or neither alive nor dead (such as a construct). Deathwatch sees through any spell or ability that allows creatures to feign death."

The text explicitly states that the spell reveals wether or not a creature has 3 or less hit points, 4 or more hit points, or no damage.

If PCs were intended to know the hit point totals of creatures, this spell would be redundant (and the status spell would be a lot less useful as well). The argument that "the books don't say that PCs don't have this knowledge" isn't really an argument. The books don't say that the PCs don't know the layout of a dungeon as they enter it, or the spells that the BBEG has prepared.