It would be nice if we can avoid the situation where every single member of a class needs a specific item that must be a staff while never being a staff.
Having that happen because they forgot to let the class be able to use the main feature of staves feels like the wrong way to go about that though.
The funny thing about Magus right now is that if you aren't too concerned about building around using Striking Spell a lot, it's not really a bad class- some of those focus spells and feats are really nice!
so it'll be a good archetype, but not a good class.
I think it's a given that Striking Spell won't go to publication in its current state.
But if someone told me I HAD to play a Magus right now, I would dip into an archetype that offers some other offensive gimmick for my bread and butter.
The funny thing about Magus right now is that if you aren't too concerned about building around using Striking Spell a lot, it's not really a bad class- some of those focus spells and feats are really nice!
Since it's not locked to the forehead anymore (see art of new iconic), just hold your hand behind your back. They still have to be in the right spot to see it, it's not visible through mountains or anything, etc...
Your body is incapable of obscuring it.
I'm going to say that's an absurd reading of it to say that it glows through your entire body such that it's visible from any and all angles.
It's obviously not what they intend, but it's literally what they have written.
Since it's not locked to the forehead anymore (see art of new iconic), just hold your hand behind your back. They still have to be in the right spot to see it, it's not visible through mountains or anything, etc...
I feel like the intent of the sigil is so that anybody who looks for it and can see it, so they know that the person behind the rampaging chimerabeast is you.
It's not to give away your presence in a dark room or to make your sartorial choices difficult.
I agree entirely- which is why I think the language they chose to express that needs to be rewritten.
I understand what the sigil is supposed to do, but as written the sigil goes WAY beyond that:
"The link between you and your eidolon takes the
form of a magic glowing sigil on each of your bodies.
This symbol can’t be obscured either magically or via
mundane means, as it either shines through the magic or
appears over top of whatever you use to cover it."
Can't be obscured by anything? So if I close my eyes, my eyelids won't obscure my view of them? A wall won't? A mountain? Invisibility?
Anyway, clearly the intent is just that the link between eidolon and character is always obvious, rather than anything silly like the above. I'd just suggest taking another pass on the wording used to describe the sigil.
Well, it's less that the Two-handed Magus is barred from material components, and more that it's so action inefficient that they'd better have a REALLY pressing reason to cast whichever particular spell with a component requirement.
But I suppose a Magus could pick up Double Slice and forgo their Synthesis, so I can try that as well.
It wouldn't "fix" Striking Spell, but I think there's an interesting Magus(Shooting Star)/Dual Weapon Warrior build to be had using throwing weapons, Dual Slice, Dual Thrower, Dual Onslaught.
My soloution would be to never have the spell dissipate. That way you can pre buff and you never waste spells
Or at least move the time limit on dissipation out to 1 minute. Then you don't really have to worry about what carrying around an extra spell into another combat might look like.
Even changing the dissipation, there'd still be some basic to-hit issues with Striking Spell though.
From a purely game-feel perspective, a class' core combat mechanic, imo, should have a really strong feeling of "I get to do this cool thing" and Striking Spells doesn't really confer that feeling, especially if you're splitting up your actions across two rounds as some people have suggested.
What I think also influences a feeling of that you're missing out on the "I get to do this cool thing" is that Eldritch Archer JUST came out and showcased a "I get to do this cool thing" that does what the Magus is doing and is in every way better than Striking Spells...
Striking Spells would have felt bad anyway but it just plain looks worse when you compare it to something so much better... :P
I don't think Eldritch Shot would be a good fit on the Magus though- too few spell slots makes losing spells on misses hurt so much worse. Plus Striking Spells works with so many more spells in general.
I'd rather see them make Striking Spells work at a math level than just copy/paste Eldritch Shot's mechanics.
There is a lot of complaining going on but I find it hard to believe anyone has actually playtested this yet. It came out yesterday. So could judgement be reserved?
There's always value in playtesting, but nothing here is so complex that certain things won't be apparent to simple inspection.
Otherwise I can't understand why you don't just use the scroll as normal/
You know, at first I thought Strikers Scroll was the only way to use a scroll with Striking Spell, just by implication of the feat's existence.
But seeing how there doesn't seem to be any rule that would actually cause that to be the case, the only benefit if Strikers Scroll that I can see is that it would let you use the scroll while keeping your grip on a 2-handed weapon.
And if Striking Spell is situational, it should be a feat, not a core class feature. Monks Flurry all the time, Champions get shield and reactions all the time, Rangers Hunt - Why aren't Magi supposed to be using Striking Spell?
I'd be happy if they just split the difference-
It's okay if there are going to be turns where maybe you wouldn't want to use Striking Spell- but it pretty clearly needs to be more useful than it is currently (especially at low levels where there's not going to be a stack of feats to make it worthwhile).
Shooting Star does work with a much larger variety of spells than Eldritch Shot will, and you do get subsequent chances to hit with it if your initial shot misses. That's not to say that Shooting Star is better than Eldritch Shot- but they're different enough that I wouldn't just replace SS with ES.
Shooting Star does seem pretty weak when compared to the other two syntheses though, so I do think it needs some improvement just for internal class balance.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to Striking Spell every turn, I'm saying that if/when they get there Slide Casting is probably too much bang for the buck.
And what if someone is not a Slide Caster?
If the primary feature is nerfed because when paired with an optional path is too powerful, the problem is with the optional path not the primary feature.
I feel like you're having a one sided argument here. I'm not opposed to them tweaking Striking Spell to be more reliable. I am pointing out that if they do make Striking Spell more reliable, they'll want to tone down Slide Casting.
Right now its balancing factor is that you probably aren't going to get to use Striking Spell every single turn as you'll often make multiple attacks fishing for a hit.
"Here's your shtick. Now don't use it every turn, that would be too good."
What. If its too good to use every turn, then why is it your shtick?
I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to Striking Spell every turn, I'm saying that if/when they get there Slide Casting is probably too much bang for the buck.
If they enhance the accuracy much (or the wrong way), I could see them needing to nerf Slide Casting. Right now its balancing factor is that you probably aren't going to get to use Striking Spell every single turn as you'll often make multiple attacks fishing for a hit.
It compounds too if you pick up a feat through an archetype that gives you extra action efficiency on a Strike. Pick up something like Acrobat's Tumbling Strike and you might reliably doing 5 actions worth of stuff every round before even looking at haste effects.
Yeah, this seems unlikely to happen. First, they have to target you with a spell (rare enough that they use targeted spells, but then also picking you as the target), then, you have to have spell parry going, which, with your very tight actions (3 for spellstrike in the same round), is not often going to happen, and finally, they have to miss or you have to save against the spell.
I suppose you might put up spell parry on your non-spellstrike rounds, if you didn't have to move, instead of doing a third attack.
You can work around the action economy though, whether trough the several available haste effects, or simply leaning on attack patterns that don't require using your own spells to Striking Spell every turn.
It's situational, and I kind of wish Capture Spell was a viable option for the non-Spell Sliding syntheses, but I do think this feat is pretty much good to go as written. Worst case, the other available level 8 Magus feats are also strong if not even stronger.
It does not feel like an advantage if it removes gameplay opportunity. It's like the DM removing all undead from the game because you have a Paladin and a Cleric in the party. (to a less extreme extent)
I mean this as gently as I can, but if your DM is removing that many options just to hamstring characters, then they could stand to improve considerably as DMs.
From my point of view- Capture Spell means I can focus my tactical choices around mitigating area of effect damage. Whether that's because I know that targeting me specifically is a large risk for my opponents, or because I know my opponents are leaving their Disintegrates at home and just bringing bigger Fireballs, the end result is about the same for me.
Like the 10th level synthesis feats be "casting a non-cantrip spell" instead of "a spell from a spell-slot".
I can see why they wouldn't want to do that- that's a window for future abuses if something comes along that would allow at-will casting of a Striking Spell eligible spell (non-cantrip).
If your DM is inclined to tweak the enemies' spell lists to not include single target spells just because of this feat, that's kind of a strong advantage in and of itself.
I realize that many of these are discussed in detail in their own threads, this is just a review of feats with issues as they seem to me at present. If I don't mention a feat, it's because I think it's good or very good.
Raise a Tome: as mentioned elsewhere, this is nearly incompatible with the Magus Synthesis features. Also, it could stand to have the flavor text explain the the book is mystically protected or something, because as described it's pretty implausible.
Spirit Sheath: nice feat, but the action economy benefit of getting a free interact to draw with Striking Spell might better be spun off into its own level 1 feat that would work with any sheath, not just a "spirit" one. Or better yet just make that a default benefit of Striking Spell.
Spell Parry: this feat should also benefit from an additional +1 if the weapon in question has the Parry trait. That aside, this is probably my favorite feat chain in the class.
Strikers Scroll: as a feat, this is pretty bad both mechanically and aesthetically. I'd suggest dropping the requirement to "affix" the scroll- this just isn't strong enough to burden it with a prep time. Even then, this is really limited for anyone who doesn't also have the Scroll Trickster archetype
Martial Caster: all of the level 6 feats are strong, but this one is so essential to the class that the other two are almost trap options for their level. It's fine that the Magus is spell-slot starved as a balance feature, but that makes anything that gives additional spell slots EXTREMELY valuable.
Comet Spell: Shooting Star is already the synthesis that see the least benefit from Striking Spell, and this feat requires both a battlefield geometry that will rarely happen and target selection that likely won't be optimal for the situation. This feat needs to be much stronger to give Shooting Star some teeth- right now a Shooting Star Magus would be better of with any of the other available level 10 feats (Cascading and Quickened are just much better than this).
Whirlwind Spell: While I acknowledge the action economy inherent in this, I'm not convinced it's so strong as to warrant its level 20 requirement. Consider dropping this to level 18 (or lower?).
As a life-long reader who is old enough to have read more paper books than digital ones, who dreads moving because packed boxes of books are heavy, and who worked in a book store for several years:
If you are holding a book in one hand and you try to parry with it, your BEST case scenario is that you aren't going to be holding on the that book any more. And it likely isn't going to be in much shape to ever be read again afterwards either.
I don't think the action economy is much of a problem at all; the other feats and features contain a lot of action economy hacks that smooth that out really well (and for some builds, trying to Strike Spell with your own spells might be a bit of a trap option).
And "harmfull spells" is a really big bucket. Harm isn't just damage.
Maybe they should bring the spell strike mechanic in line with Eldritch Shot.
Right now a Magus/EA could spell strike at the end of his turn, and launch an Eldritch Shot with his next turn, thus firing a shot that's carrying 2 spells with entirely different to-hit parameters.
Hopefully coupled with them resolving how wild shape interacts with various other rules.
Absolutely! We shouldn't even need to wait for a supplement to get that, tbh. They could probably clear up 99% of the rules questions about polymorphs with a 3 sentence paragraph.
Shifter on the other hand gives things that are more unique. So they have a higher chance of being a full class.
I don't know what it would mean for Shifter in relation to the prior edition, but in PF2 this feels very in line with other "feat chain" style archetypes (Mauler, Martial Artist, etc).
I'd expect the Dedication to give the Wildshape focus spell, and then access to the appropriate Druid feats at min level +2. Add in a couple of archetype exclusive feats as gravy and call it a day.
I mentioned that for the ape later in the same post. :)
Sorry I missed that, forum browsing while distracted!
Anyway, there are ground dwelling upright bipedal birds that would make great Animal Companions- they're just not well characterized by the basic "Bird" entry.
They'd be more aptly described by the Dromaoesaur rules really.
There are a couple of Animal Companions who walk upright, and would get 10ft reach at Large per CRB Table 9-1. Ape and Arboreal Sapling come to mind specifically.
Myself I'd say Ape, Arboreal Sapling, Bird, Bear and Dromaeosaur could be counted as tall. For birds I'm thinking of secretarybird and seriemas, long legged birds of prey.
Bear is kind of debatable, but the the rest of those examples are solid.
Some of those support abilities that key off of reach could be pretty useful if the character also has a way to reliably Strike multiple targets- but it would be very hard to fit the feats to do that into an Animal Companion build. And I'm still skeptical it's worth missing 7 AC for.
Reach is amazing, but at the moment there's no inherent way for Animal Companions to get it, since there's no Specialization or other option to make them Huge. They potentially go up to Large size with Savage or Indomitable even if they didn't start with it...but that's as far as they go.
There are a couple of Animal Companions who walk upright, and would get 10ft reach at Large per CRB Table 9-1. Ape and Arboreal Sapling come to mind specifically.
That said, I can't think of a combination that leverages that reach bonus to be as good as +7 AC.
I'm not up for modelling the math myself at the moment, but in order to avoid some MAP the stack introduces an extra dice roll. I'm not sure the end result is really that much more reliable than just having your teammate make their last attack at full MAP on the enemy target.
Especially at the opportunity cost of an action, a reaction, and multiple feats. As has been pointed out, there are already better ways to achieve similar that are clearly within the design intent of the game (Marshal archetype Target of Opportunity).
I'd say leave it as it is- it's genuinely more amusing that it is practical. The only vaguely practical application of it I can think of would be if the monk has line-of-sight on a target that their teammate does not.
attack is synonymous to Strike, but not to an action with the Attack trait (since spell attacks are not Strikes, and would not benefit from, nor trigger, the feat).
This reminds me of my general confusion regarding attacks from Polymorph spell effects, and whether the wording "which are the only attacks you can use" allows you to socket those attacks into Strikes provided by feats.
The whole Strike/Attack/attack nomenclature needs to be clarified as to when these terms are synonymous and when they are not.
I don't see anything wrong with going that route- would make a good elf or gnome build describing how they've spent a ridiculously long lifespan dabbling in stuff.
But it's not especially strong either. Gives up a lot of opportunity cost skipping strong combat feats or specializing in specific skill sets.
You can already basically make a "samurai" from pure fighter.
If there must be something separate with the samurai name attached to it, let it be an archetype so that you can bolt the flavor on to other base classes.
You could treat it as an up-sized spiked chain meant to be used by a large or huge creature. A pc would need to be a giant instinct barb to use it, and would be clumsy 1 while doing so per the rules.
It also has some unfortunate wording; a GM might rule that magical fog such as Obscuring Mist isn't 'weather'. Tempest Oracle is much more direct.
I don't think anybody would have too hard of a time arguing that fog is weather. And if magical fire is 'fire', then magical weather is 'weather' (or insert a score of similar equivalencies).
But yeah, I don't see a way for a base Druid to quite reach that same lofty end damage without Disintegrate.
There's no wrong way to play as long as everyone is having fun.
But as far as my preference goes- it's more interesting to have to make tough choices, and the game is generally balanced around the idea that your feat resources are pretty limited.
This is a pure gimmick build designed to stack Shoving Sweeps/Shove Down/The Harder They Fall/Boundless Reprisals to fling to the ground anything trying to move within reach of your weapon. Use a reach/shove or reach/trip weapon for maximum effect. It also stacks Improved Knockdown/Sneak Attacker/The Harder They Fall as the main offensive action on its own turn. (Though there's almost certainly a better build for that second feat stack just going Rogue(Ruffian)/Mauler).
Could probably do psychics entirely separate from the "magic" systems in the game. Make every power a feat, lesser powers balanced on pure action economy. Stronger stuff balanced on "once per minute" or "once per day".
There's some temptation to also implement psychic focus spells- but with all the magic classes already in the game why keep rehashing the same mechanics?
Far as I can tell, incapacitation per the rules only applies on saving throws. So just the fort save has the incap effect
Sidebar on CRB page 157, note the mention of attack roll:
"Incapacitation: An ability with this trait can take a
character out of the fight. But when you use an incapacitation
effect against a creature of higher level than you, you reduce
the degree of success of your attack roll by one step, and
that creature improves the degree of success of its saving
throws for that effect by one step."
Wildshape Druids have a hefty load of high priority class feats to take, but there's JUST enough room to pick up Acrobat Dedication and Dodge Away at levels 2 and 6 respectively. Acrobatic Dedication gives the Druid some much welcomed "free" skill advances while ensuring access to the clutch skill feat Aerobatics Mastery at level 7, while Dodge Away is an all-star reaction whenever you're attacked in melee, regardless of what form you're in.
1) Wild Shape
2) Acrobat Dedication
4) Form Control
6) Dodge Away
7) Aerobatics Mastery
8) Soaring Shape
10) Healing Transformation/Plant Shape/Elemental Shape (any of these)
12) Dragon Shape
14) Reactive Transformation
16) Monstrosity Shape
18) Perfect Form Control
20) True Shapeshifter
It's always better to have an "official" option, but if you have a GM who's willing to work with you, you could probably cobble together a respectable "Gnoll" by borrowing from the ancestries of the already published races.
I don't think you'd create any balance issues mish-mashing together feats and heritages from the Catfolk and Orc ancestries, for example.
We tried our hardest to include every 2E god released up to this point, but if we're missing anyone or if any of the info seems wrong or contradictory, please let us know!
Now that we've finally announced Lost Omens Divine Mysteries, I'm coming to the community for some help. There are a lot of gods in Pathfinder Second Edition and we're doing our best to remaster as many as possible in LODM, bringing their stat blocks up to speed with the updated format and mechanics of the remaster (dropping alignment, adding sanctification, and so on). While I've tried my best to tweak edicts and anathema for gods as part of this, there's surely some I've missed along the way.
What I'm looking for specifically are those edicts and anathemas that make typical adventuring more difficult or nigh impossible, or those that are so vague that ruling from table to table could cause issues.
For example, Qi Zhong used to have an anathema of "Deal lethal damage to another creature (unless as part of a necessary medical treatment)." That sounds fine and all until you run into constructs and undead that are immune to nonlethal damage. What are you supposed to do then? The anathema now specifically calls out dealing damage to living creatures to allow PCs to fight undead without worrying about displeasing Qi Zhong.
I'd love to see any other gods that have edicts and/or anathemas that make adventuring difficult. I can't promise that every god shared here will see changes or even make it into LODM, but I will definitely look every submission to see what can be done about any issues.
Hey, there! As someone who has been working on the Lost Omens setting for almost five years (and playing pretty much since the setting's origin), I've seen my share of confusion and mistakes regarding the setting. Be it conflicting dates (Just when did the Worldwound close?) or things that are unclear about the setting (What's up with that Stasian Calendar?), there's plenty of bits of the lore that could do with a bit of cleaning up.
I figured I would create a thread to help keep track of all of these. If you have found any conflicts with canon or are simply wanting some clarification on certain parts or events within the setting, share them here! It will help us to keep track of all possible clarifications or corrections in one centralized spot. I can't promise that we'll be answer these right away, or even at all within this thread, but we will definitely be able to use the information to clean things up going forward. If I have my druthers, it won't just be rules that get errata or clarifications as time goes on.
For now, thanks to everyone that's been enjoying the game, playing in the setting, and generally been a fan of Pathfinder. We hope you continue to enjoy the Lost Omens setting! :)
I realize that this blog is a tad late, and that's mostly on me. With preparations for other books, GenCon, and other factors in play, I let this slip just a bit later than we usually aim for, so sorry about that! It's here now, though, and I'm excited to celebrate our authors on Knights of Lastwall. I think they did a great job with fleshing out the organization into one that can stand alongside classic favorites like the Hellknights or Pathfinder Society. Here's to them!
This is a spoiler-filled resource thread for the second volume of the Quest for the Frozen Flame Adventure Path, Lost Mammoth Valley by Jessica Catalan.
The GM Reference thread for the first volume, Broken Tusk Moon, is here.
The GM Reference thread for the third and final volume, Burning Tundra, is here.
This is a spoiler-filled resource thread for the third and final volume of the Quest for the Frozen Flame Adventure Path, Burning Tundra by Jason Tondro.
The GM Reference thread for the first volume, Broken Tusk Moon, is here.
The GM Reference thread for the second volume, Lost Mammoth Valley, is here.
This is a spoiler-filled resource thread for the first volume of the Quest for the Frozen Flame Adventure Path, Broken Tusk Moon by Ron Lundeen & Stephanie Lundeen.
The GM Reference thread for the second volume, Lost Mammoth Valley, is here.
The GM Reference thread for the third and final volume, Burning Tundra, is here.
Hey, there! I have some big news today. We've officially added a number of Lost Omens products to the Pathfinder FAQ page.
To start things off, we have entries for the Lost Omens World Guide, Character Guide, and Gods & Magic, as well as a few quick clarifications for The Mwangi Expanse.
Going forward, we ask that all questions, requests for clarifications, and flags for Lost Omens errata be placed in this thread. It will helps us keep track of all possible changes in one centralized spot. If you happen to see a question or something that could be flagged for errata elsewhere, feel free to drop it here!
I'm hoping to keep regular batches of updates going for the Lost Omens products and I plan to announce when additional entries and changes are added to the FAQ.
For now, thanks to everyone that's been asking questions and helping us clean up and improve our Lost Omens books! We hope you continue to enjoy the Lost Omens line and look forward both to new books and updates for our existing books. :)
This is a spoiler-filled resource thread for the third and final volume of the Fists of the Ruby Phoenix Adventure Path, King of the Mountain by James Case.
The GM Reference thread for the first volume, Despair on Danger Island, is here.
The GM Reference thread for the second volume, Ready? Fight!, is here.
PaizoCon 2021 is this weekend and one of the staple panels for the con is Secrets of Golarion. The panel features Adam Daigle (Director of Game Development), James Jacobs (Creative Director), Mark Moreland (Director of Brand Strategy), and myself telling you all you want to know about the Lost Omens campaign setting, the official setting of the Pathfinder RPG.
We want your questions about the setting! Do you want to know more about a specific character? Do you want to know more about the mysteries of a particular location? Do you want to know what happened to Aroden? Ask your question here and we might answer it! (Except for the Aroden question. That one is totally off the table.)
Drop your questions here and we'll pick our favorites to answer at the panel. Then swing on by to Paizo's twitch channel this Friday, May 28th, and catch the answers live starting at 5 PM PDT. We might even try to snag some questions from our streaming audience, so don't be afraid to drop us questions there.
We look forward to revealing some of the secrets soon!
Just for clarity, there's no need to bring your own characters or any other material for that matter! I will be providing pregens, pencils, and dice so just bring some wacky ideas and we'll have some fun!
Just for clarity, there's no need to bring your own characters or any other material for that matter! I will be providing pregens, pencils, and dice so just bring some wacky ideas and we'll have some fun!
Ha, I wrote this intro a while back. You all already know that the Starfinder Adventure Path after Against the Aeon Throne is Signal of Screams!
We'll be announcing the AP after THAT at PaizoCon during the Starfinder Adventure Path seminar. Chris Sims is in charge of that one and its a real hot ticket!
Please cancel Order 4398135. Also, please cancel my Starfinder Society Scenario subscription. I didn't realize that Starfinder Superscribers received that for free.
I'm looking at making a self-healer with the use of Godless Healing. Fey Foundling helps a ton with healing, but I'm not 100% as to whether the two would interact as I hope.
Fey Foundling wrote:
Fey Foundling
You were found in the wilds as a child, bearing a mark of the First World.
Prerequisites: You may only select this feat at 1st level.
Benefit: Your strange connection to the First World and the fey infuses you with life, and whenever you receive magical healing, you heal an additional 2 points per die rolled. You gain a +2 bonus on all saving throws against death effects. Unfortunately, you also suffer +1 point of damage from cold iron weapons (although you can wield cold iron weapons without significant discomfort).
Godless Healing wrote:
Godless Healing
You have mastered a specialized and complex technique to ignore pain by focusing your belief on the self rather than relying on faith.
Prerequisite: Cannot have a patron deity.
Benefit: Once per day when you have half your total hit points or fewer, you may heal yourself of an amount of damage equal to 1d8 plus your total Hit Dice as a move action. This is a supernatural ability.
Special: You can take this feat more than once. Each time you do, you may heal yourself one additional time per day.
So, Fey Foundling specifically works with magical healing. The healing from Godless Healing is classed as supernatural. I would believe that the two interact just fine, but I can't prove it without a shadow of a doubt per RAW.
Supernatural Abilities wrote:
Supernatural Abilities: These can't be disrupted in combat and generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity. They aren't subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or dispel magic, and don't function in antimagic areas.
It looks like Obsidian is trying to get a feel for a possible PF CRPG. On their forums, one of their devs posted a link to a survey, which includes a significant section asking about Pathfinder and even what APs might make a good game!
Lisa Stevens mentioned that a CRPG was always a goal, but it's cool to see that some work might be getting started on it!
It looks like Obsidian is trying to get a feel for a possible PF CRPG. On their forums, one of their devs posted a link to a survey, which includes a significant section asking about Pathfinder and even what APs might make a good game!
Lisa Stevens mentioned that a CRPG was always a goal, but it's cool to see that some work might be getting started on it!
Did this order for the Special Edition of the CotCT hardcover actually go through? The email and order both are rather barren and I'm concerned it never properly processed.
I was looking to print out a large-scale version of the map of Kintargo for my upcoming game. Hopefully, it would be big enough to lay out on the table and allow for my players to mark off important points or strategize war room style. Does anyone know of somewhere I could have something like this printed? I'm also considering local options, but if there's something online, I'd love to know!
I'm trying to figure out what calculations were used to generate the XP values required for level up. On Medium progression, it starts with 2,000, then 3,000 additional XP. It appears to follow a pattern of doubling the value every other level, but it doesn't seem to stick with this the entire way through.
Does anyone know what the formula is to determine the XP values or are they just arbitrary?
I'm looking a bit into these and was looking for some help in finding more. I'm looking for organizations or groups that make a fair amount of use summoning, binding, or calling creatures for use. For example, the Hellknights summon devils to train against and the Acadamae of Korvosa has a conjuration as part of their final exam. Is there any other ones that I might have missed?
My player's have (foolishly) attempted to climb onto creatures bigger than themselves so many times. I eventually got fed up and made rules for such a thing. Maybe they'll be of use at your table? Take a look!
I'll keep the most up to date version of these rule on my blog, located here.
Rules:
Ever brave, or ever foolish, the time will come when an adventurer will feel the need to scale a creature monstrous in size. Be it for a tactical advantage, a distraction, or to fulfill some kind of challenge, climbing onto a larger creature is no easy task.
There are two categories of creatures referred to within these rules: the summit and the climber. The summit is the creature that is to be climbed upon. The climber refers to the creature attempting to climb onto another creature.
To begin climbing onto a dragon, giant, or other larger creature, a climber must first succeed on a melee touch attack. This attack provokes attacks of opportunity. If you are hit by the summit, you take the damage normally and apply half that amount as a penalty to the attack roll. On a success, you have successfully began to climb onto the summit and entered its space. More than one climber may climb onto a summit, but only if they are all at least two size categories smaller than the summit. For each size category smaller, an additional number of climbers may attempt to climb on the summit. A huge summit may be climbed upon by two medium climbers, four small climbers, eight tiny climbers, and so on. Each climber beyond the first takes a cumulative –4 penalty to their attack and climb rolls to climb onto the summit.
Once you are climbing on the summit, you must make a climb check for each size category larger than you the summit is. The DC for the climb check is equal to 10+the summit’s CR. This is to climb to a position where you are able to hold on properly and still be able to take other actions. You may instead begin to take other actions at any point before making your successful climb checks, but you incur a –4 penalty to all d20 rolls for each climb check that was ignored. For example, when climbing onto a bullete, a human can make two climb checks to get onto its back, make a single climb check to attack on the bullete’s side at a –4, or forgo the climb checks and began attacking at the bullete’s legs at a –8.
Once in position, there are a variety of actions that can be taken. As a standard action, you make a single melee attack with a light or one-handed weapon at a +4 bonus. This bonus increases by 2 for every size category, beyond the first, you are smaller than the summit. For example, a halfling climbing onto an ogre would receive a +6 bonus to her attack roll. Summits attacked in this way are treated as flat-footed for the purposes of sneak attack. Also, as a standard action, you may cast a spell, but must first succeed on a concentration check (DC 15+spell level).
As a full-round action, you may instead choose to target a specific body part to damage. The effects are the same as that of the gunslinger’s targeting deed. Instead as a full-round action, you may brace yourself onto the summit to aid in staying on (see below). This grants you a +8 bonus to climb checks until the start of your next turn.
A summit that is being climbed upon may try to remove a climber or climbers in a number of ways. As a standard action, the summit may make a single melee attack against a climber. When damaged, the climber must make a climb check to hold on. The DC is equal to 5+the damage taken. Instead, the summit may attempt a combat maneuver against the climber. This combat maneuver does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A successful check knocks the climber off. The climber takes 1d6 points of damage for every size category smaller they are than the summit. Finally, as a full-round action, the summit may make a Strength shake to force all climbers off at once. The climbers make a climb check to hold on with the DC equal to the summit’s Strength check.
Any spells or effects that offer a reflex save that target the summit, also target any climbers. Climbers receive a –4 to this reflex save. If a summit is knocked prone or otherwise falls over, climbers may attempt a reflex save (DC equal to 10+the summit’s CR) to leap to an adjacent square safely or remain on the summit, but avoid damage. Failure results in taking damage as if knocked off the summit (see above).
This order was placed for a copy of the New Oaths Compendium. It's still showing as pending. However, I just received my copy of this. I don't know if this needs to be addressed, but I figured I'd make it known. Thanks.
As I posted here, I accidentally set a gift certificate to be saved for later in my shopping cart. Unfortunately, I keep getting an error when trying to access my shopping cart from any browser.
Would it be possible to clear that out from my saved for later so I may try to buy things again?
I was trying to purchase a gift certificate and accidentally clicked the 'Save for later' button for the gift certificate. However, now it seems I can't return to the shopping cart, regardless of what may or may not be in it. I'm in no rush to buy this, but I figured you guys would like to know that saving the gift certificate seems to break your shopping cart.
I recently placed Order 3050879. Looking at my list of available gift certificates, it doesn't seem to be showing on the list. Any help with this would be appreciated. Thanks!
(By the way, I've been very satisfied with Paizo's customer service on the multiple times I've dealt with them. All my thanks and appreciation to the entire CS team. :D )
