Since it was covered a couple of times in this thread but not mentioned by the errata, I'll make another attempt to get an official answer for the Interlocutor Kyton.
I'll make the call on the unnerving gaze that it is will-based, but the poison entry - Is it a mistake and needs to be removed entirely, or am I going to be reducing this creature's intended effectiveness by not utilizing the poison it should have?
I also don't want to find a poison that seems fitting for this creature type only to find out I'm making him more dangerous than he should be, thus artificially raising his CR.
1. You will probably need something to bump your players all the way to 3 since the module, as written, does not get you quite there before MotLG. I chose to give a small experience bonus to start to my players for having completed a character history before starting the game.
2 and 3. Chavamana is right, there are plenty of places in the dungeon to rest. It is not even terribly inplausible that they aren't disturbed since for the most part the intelligent undead is brooding and waiting, and the unintelligent are simply standing in puddles of their own dust or drool. This also means there is no reason to go back to town.
4. Every GM's experience differs on time. My biggest surprise when I ran this module and others before is that my group NEVER got as far as I had planned for. I think it took from 3-5 sessions for my group to complete Everflame.
So my group is in the middle of the module and just now starting to explore the temple.
Spoiler:
My crew (4 players: Fighter, Rogue, Oracle, Sorcerer... all good/neutral aligned)was very worried about Evlar (the NPC that joined the temple as a new recruit at the same time as the PCs) tipping off the temple guards while they went to explore the bottom floor. Someone got it into their head that they had to get him out of the way. Nobody, at any time, actually took the time to speak with him in an attempt to determine his intentions.
Now, for those of you who are not familiar with the module, Evlar is simply a disgruntled young man joining the temple to spite his father and looking to find a place in a world that he has become disillusioned with. The module gives 2 options. Either the PCs convince him that the temple is the wrong kind of people and he becomes friendly, most likely helping them if the poop hits the fan. Or they leave him alone or fail to convince him and he helps the temple to hinder them at a later time.
My PCs went for option number 3. Let's frame him to get him out of the way. They stole a priest's robe and placed it under his mattress, then went to get Krant to tattle on him. Krant, being a big, dumb brute, stormed off to find Evlar. The party didn't see Evlar or Krant for the rest of the day. That night, they explored the dungeon. Setting off the stair trap and sliding into the snake pit, they encountered a giant snake that had a mysterious bulge down its mid-section. After defeating the snake, they cut it open to find Evlar quite dead and obviously tortured.
The looks on their faces and the obvious realization of what they had done was priceless. Perhaps in the future they'll think before they ruthlessly remove obstacles from their path without thought to consenquences. :)
Or, you could go with a series of related Pathfinder modules, such as the Price of Immortality trilogy:
Crypt of the Everflame
Masks of the Living God
City of Golden Death
All use the PFRPG ruleset. Crypt of the Everflame is an EXCELLENT starter module, both for GM and players new to Pathfinder.
I ran my group through CotE and am currently running MotLG. The best benefit of this for me was the dungeon crawl feel of the first module and the more sandbox type adventure of the second module. This really gave me a good indication of what type of game my players are geared for. Right off the bat you get to try two very differently flavored styles in the same line and then decide how to plan the rest of your campaign from there.
My group is most definitely more of a dungeon crawl group, by the way. :/
Perhaps give the gauntlets a certain number of charges and the ability to determine how many 1d6 to add to his damage. 1d6 - no charge expended. 2d6 1 charge expended. On up to 6d6 5 charges expended. Really makes him think twice before ramping up the damage and also has to be judicious as to how many charges he thinks he'll need. An extra 1d6 isn't that big of a deal and it's in his best interest to use it with just this to keep the gauntlets indefinitely. Maybe he won't use extra charges until he thinks they're in mortal danger. Kind of a limited "get out of jail free" card.
It sounds to me like said "benefactor", in spite of his perceived original altruistic intentions to "unite the world under one banner", has finally showed his true face. Either he's been playing you all along or the process of dominating the world has simply made him loopy. He is now more of a danger than a uniter. Time to end him and move on. :)
I got my hands on a copy of I6:Ravenloft and plan to convert to Pathfinder rules myself. I played it back in my AD&D days with Bugleyman as the DM. Fantastic module that unfortunately wiped us in the crypts. I'm going to be running this once converted for my current gaming group. Any suggestions for conversion to Pathfinder rules? There's a rather large leap from AD&D to Pathfinder.
Also, I have the Classic Horrors Revisited to aid me in modeling Strahd for the current ruleset and other items contained therein that should be very helpful. I can't wait to run my group through this, it really left an impression on me years ago.
Edit: Having played both the original AD&D I6 and a modified version of Expedition in D&D 3.0, I definitely believe the original was far better. The atmosphere alone is amazing.
A table with exactly which products, in which order (perhaps dates released for existing, which product is current, and dates expected for upcoming items) for each sub would probably help as well.
Gary, it does indeed help. Don't get me wrong, all the information is here on the site, and this is a new bit I hadn't seen before. But I'm still having to look at this and do a little more digging to see which of the items on that page come with which sub. Putting this information together with bits and pieces elsewhere will eventually get me where I'm going, but I'm afraid new customers to the site will get tired of looking and head elsewhere.
Regardless, I still plan to continue purchasing and using your stuff. Even if I have to dig a little, it's well worth it and I tell others about Pathfinder all the time.
EDIT: Well that's what I get for a cursory look. Ignore my comments above. It may not be in table format on that link, but it's all there. Thanks a ton!
...when gamers came to blows and fisticuffs over the last Mountain Dew; when arguments were over which band was better, or why the new rules from Dragon should definitely be allowed in our game because EGG wrote them himself...
What happened to us?!
What are these useless fights over Left Wing and Right Wing--don't you remember? The Sphinx's wings are vestigial! It doesn't matter which one you damage first.
Liberal vs Conservative? Are you talking about water supplies in the next town?
Gamers! Return to the Game! The Game; the Game! The Game calls (said in the voice of th!e Chamberlain from The dark Crystal...)
Sweet... political discussion distraction tactic success! I got his Dew while he was waxing nostalgic. :)
I think the thing that was confusing to me, and the thing that made me wait so long to subscribe, is that when I order, I don't know what I'm going to get until I order it. It's great that when you go through the order process, they ask you what product you wish to start with, but knowing what those choices are before ordering probably would have allowed me to subscribe sooner.
A table with exactly which products, in which order (perhaps dates released for existing, which product is current, and dates expected for upcoming items) for each sub would probably help as well. This way we know clearly which products are associated with which subs.
I love your products guys, you've already made my gaming a better experience. These suggestions are just to try and help make it easier to get your great stuff!
Edit: Yes Vic, that update did help to clear things up a bit. My suggestions above are in addition to that info.
Rule 2 prevents a Wiz1 with Int28 from casting 9th-level spells; the text says he only can use 9th-level spell slots if he could actually cast 9th-level spells by being a high-level wizard.
It's clear that's what the rules mean, but I disagree that that's what the rules actually say.
And since I don't care, other than to point out I understand why particularly nitpicky sorts would latch onto this, I'll stop here.
Good idea, William. All I got for my efforts here were rules quoted that don't address the issue directly, only implied, and ad hominem attacks as to my motives.
I am running a game, I have no need to manipulate rules since I can houserule anything I don't like in the book. I stand by the intent of the rules in the book and don't think a first level caster should have access to higher level spell slots due to a high caster stat. I always have. Accusing me of wanting to cheat the system is counterproductive and only serves to detract from the facts presented.
I only wish this could have been a productive discussion instead of a rabid defense of ego that it seemed to turn into. Seeing as how the facts as presented aren't actually being addressed by those who feel the need to argue, I'll end here.
It specifically states to go to the class chart to see when you get the slots! You really can't get more explicit than that.
Here it is again.
" In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level."
You MUST be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level.
Otherwise you don't get the slots! It's only hard to understand if you want it to be hard to understand. You must be able to cast spells of the given spell level to get the bonus slots for that spell level.
Must have high enough level to cast spells to get bonus slots.
I guess what I'm saying is your argument does not address the question at hand. Here is your quote used as evidence within its context:
"Abilities and Spellcasters
The ability that governs bonus spells depends on what type
of spellcaster your character is: Intelligence for wizards;
Wisdom for clerics, druids, and rangers; and Charisma
for bards, paladins, and sorcerers." - this is the only mention of bonus spells in this section
"In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details." - this only refers to being able to cast spells of a given level
This says nothing about when you get the slots. Only that you have to be high enough level in the appropriate class to cast spells of that level in addition to having the ability score. Since you can place spells of lower level in higher level slots the argument could be made that there is utility in those slots at a lower level without the need for higher level spells. I disagree with this argument, but it has merit.
The table just says, "BONUS: for having a high ability score you get access to these fabulous prizes that you otherwise would not!" It doesn't say, "but you don't get them until you can cast spells of the same level as the slot."
I also simply point out the case for it and whether or not any clarification is made is up to Paizo. I think it's unclear, but then that's what this board is for: to clear up some of the mildly ambiguous items that inevitably pop up in such a complex ruleset. I'm happy with the official answer received here, especially since it's the way I have been interpreting it all along anyway. I just don't think Studpuffin should be thrown under the bus simply because some here don't agree that he had a valid point and are offended that the assumptions they have always made might be in question.
The simple fact is, it is an assumption because it is not spelled out. I agree with the assumption because it makes sense. But I also see a valid argument for the other side.
But hey if you want to have 40 spell slots at level 1 and everyone casting spells with a high Int, your game
Same kind of logic used here as in the rest of your arguments. As for 40 spell slots at level 1, the class tables spell out exactly when you get the base slots. The ability score table does NOT spell out exactly when you get the bonuses. Also, as for everyone casting spells with high intelligence, it's also spelled out that you need more than a high intelligence to cast ANY spell (appropriate class level, class special abilities, etc.). I've also stated I agree with what you're saying as far as how the rule should be interpreted. That doesn't change the fact that it IS open for interpretation.
If you see your example here as the same as what I'm saying, then you've missed the argument entirely and there's no point in continuing.
Every player other then the power gamer would say, No
You know you need slots to cast spell. You know you need to be a caster class to have slots. You can see on the chart what level you need to be to have the slot. There is no valid augment here. None at all
Adding more rules is pointless, Grow a set and tell your munchkin "no"
I'm sorry if I offended you, I was not shopping for insults. I simply believe Studpuffin had a point and it can be interpreted different ways. I have neither a player requesting access to these spell slots, nor the need to "grow a set".
The charts to which you are referring also say that bonus spells can be used with rangers, bards, and paladins even when they don't have slots normally. I'm simply saying if you look at the bonus spells chart, it does not say you can't have those bonus slots and the class charts make no reference to bonus spell slots whatsoever.
Once again. I agreed with you on the rule. I've always thought it worked that way. It's been confirmed by a Paizo developer. The rules in the book, however, are not clear.
The problem with 'adding rules because of lack of common sense' is you end up with a 2000 page health ca- er rule book.
Let me put it this way Ramius. Do we really need rules to spell out that a dead character cannot take any actions?
I guess I need to clarify. *I* believe it is common sense. *YOU* believe it is common sense. However, some people don't see this particular rule as common sense and a very valid argument against it has been presented.
I think we can all agree that it will be extremely difficult to find a valid argument against being unable to act when dead. I do not believe the comparison is valid.
If your figher( with no 2nd level spell slots) can't cast them, there really is no point in stating it as it's kinda easy to tell
player:Oh well I get the slots because my Init is 16
GM: Does bob the fighter with Int 16 also gain them?
Player: Well of coarse not
Gm: why not?
Player : well he doesn't cast spells!
GM: And you do not cast 2nd level spells
Player: But I am a wizard
GM: with no 2nd level slots..just like bob
Let me pose this:
player:Oh well I get the slots because my Init is 16
GM: Does bob the fighter with Int 16 also gain them?
Player: Sure
Gm: why?
Player : Because he also has the same int
GM: But he can't cast spells
Player: So he has nothing to fill the slots with
GM: I guess it doesn't matter then
My point is this. Saying you can't cast second level spells and saying you don't get your second level bonus spell slot (which can be filled with a 0 level or 1st level spell) are 2 completely different things. A fighter that would get the slots, while silly, doesn't matter because the class descriptions prevent him from casting anything from it anyway. I am not arguing that you SHOULD get the slots before the level you can start casting the spells. I agree with you that you should NOT have access to them until that time. I'm simply saying a very valid argument could be made against that with no rule to state otherwise.
It's sad when you need to add another rule when common sense allows you to see how it works. The chart says when you gain the spells and at what level. If no one though fighter with Int of 18 got spells I am failing to see what is unclear
No rule needs to be added. Clarification of existing ones is all that was asked. Besides, Fighters are unable to cast arcane magic. They never get access to spells. Plus, according to the rules and how you interpret them, a fighter might actually get those bonus spell slots. Since they are unable to cast any arcane magic, they have nothing to fill them with so the point is moot.
According to the book, there is nothing stating WHEN you get the bonus spell slots. Yes, common sense dictates that you get them when you can cast spells of that level, but it is NOT explicit. Saying you don't get them until you get normal spell slots of that level is an assumption. A very reasonable assumption and confirmed by Paizo in this thread, but still an assumption that is not stated in the rules.
I think the crux is this. Paizo has officially ruled you do not get access to the slots unless you're high enough level to gain that level of slots normally. It seemed most of us agreed that was the case from the beginning. However, Puffin is right in that it is not explicitly stated in the rules that you do not gain access to the bonus spell slots until you are sufficient level to cast those levels of spells. Everything stated as evidence was inferred from rules relating to the spells of that level, not the slots themselves. I myself have always played that you can't have access to those slots until you're of a level to cast those level of spells, but again, it is not explicit in the rules anywhere.
I agree that it is common sense. I also understand the need for errata for the rules lawyers that we've all run into. If your gaming group respects the ruling of the GM, then no problem. Explicit rules simply give weight to those decisions.
In Dragonlance, even Arcane Magic (wizardly anyway), also come from the deities. Both Clerical and Wizardly magic and abilities are controlled and granted by the deities.
That's a good point. There is so much that is up to either the campaign setting or GM tastes it can be tailored to any way you want it. I always thought of divine magic and arcane as being inherently different from different sources. Divine directly from the gods, and Arcane... well, anywhere the GM decides. Could come from within, could come from some (excuse the WOT reference) "True Source". In the case of dragonlance, all comes from a divine source. That's the beauty of this type of gaming. The GM can choose the flavor that best suits his/her campaign.
As far as non-believers? What is the prevailing opinion in the campaign world and how does this non-belief fit in/not fit in to it. From there it's just making a judgment call on human nature to determine how they are treated.
My take on it all is that Pathfinder is a game. You can do with it what you will.
the game itself involves a complex use of deep rooted archetypes which differ from player to player, but hold some cultural commonalities. Using gods as more powerful or more perfect embodiments of these archetypes is merely empowering a person of faith (as opposed to wizardly logic) to access deeper magic within or around themselves.
An atheistic "cleric" seems to me merely a wizard. In my imagination (again this is just a game) a cleric is merely a pious sorceror.
There is such an endless supply of permutations of archetypes and beliefs that can go together, though. For example, I played a 3.5 wizard to level 19 over the course of several years. His belief system changed several times, generally influenced by things that happened directly to him. One example was direct abyssal interference with his own soul that caused him to reject everything evil and shifted his stance from neutral to good and begin to actively champion the cause of the most widely accepted "good" aligned god.
As far as the general topic, I would say you'd more likely run into the person who doesn't think the gods are worthy of worship or simply not what they are trying to pretend to be than the gnarly, screaming crackpot who scares small children and runs around raving that they don't exist.
EDIT: As a side note, this character always believed in the existence of the gods, he just started at level 1 not caring anything about them and ended up a devout follower.
First time posting here. I recently subbed to the Adventure path and am pretty excited about this next issue. The first one was pretty awesome, having come from a drama background myself. Keep up the great work guys. My new homebrew campaign starts next weekend and I look forward to many more tidbits of campaign info from you guys.
