Pilts Swastel

Rugult's page

31 posts. Alias of Thurston Hillman (Starfinder Society Developer).


If the convention center allows it, I would vote for partially sectioning the rooms off during regular play and then opening them up for the Special. I know there's a worry about headache for the HQ table, but it might actually relieve the stress, as I know there were a lot of musterers who kept coming up (I was one of them) when HQ wasn't quite ready to let generics in. Sectioning would probably help keep the musterers in their own little area until they're called on by the high and mighty folks at HQ.

That aside, I'm also down with Tim's crazy idea of making some form of PVC tubing apparatus. Perhaps each player has one tube over their ear and one over their mouth, and it connects everyone together so they can hear and talk, but just among the group?

Ok... maybe I shouldn't encourage Tim!

Just to clarify a bit...

From the manuscript I submitted, this adventure does not directly tie in with the season 3 metaplot. Obviously it does deal with Tian Xia (per the description), and I'm sure if Mark wanted to, he could jigger it in editing to fit in without too many issues. :)

Great idea for a thread!

I just have a few thanks I really wanted to throw out there:

1) Mark and Liz. They worked their butts off for this convention, and I think all their effort paid off in aces. GREAT job you two!

2) Dane Pitchford for being a white knight on the Saturday. Also, for staying up all night with Tim and I.

3) Lora Massey for helping me get revenge on Jason Bulmahn. I think Jason has learned not to mess with Canadians and our use of the letter U.

4) John and Noel. John for chatting with me throughout the whole convention whenever I happened upon the PFS room and wasn't running. Noel for making sure Tim and I (somewhat) made it to our Sunday slot.

5) Tim Hitchcock, for hanging out with me all Saturday night. Despite him saying "Thurston, you're going to hate me for this...", I think Tim showed me one of the best convention experiences I've ever had.

Thanks for the compliments Thoth!

As someone who GMed for you ("real men wear eyeliner"), I agree that it is hard to keep up a good volume without drowning out other tables, losing your voice, or having players hear you. Still, I think Thorkull summed it up very well by saying it was a common issue and solutions are being looked at.

Maybe next year we'll get one of those huge open rooms like WotC procured! :D

100% agree.

As this was my first ever GenCon, I got to meet a lot of awesome people at the PFS booth, and even ran a number of sessions throughout the weekend.

Since my only real interaction with the Society up until the Con had been through some freelance PFS scenarios, it was great to meet up with people and see them playing the game they enjoy.

Mark, I think you're right - "we're gonna need a bigger boat" (err... room).

I just ordered mine.

I have to say that missing out on the first three ToH was a big mistake on my end. I ALWAYS find myself referencing the PDFs of the originals when working on my Pathfinder material. Looking forward to getting this sucker and weighing down my bookshelf.

Oh Mark you tease...

I believe their plan is to have the printed version ready in time for GenCon (could be mistaken). :)

ShadowcatX wrote:
Name Violation wrote:
Sir Jolt wrote:
Rugult wrote:

I adore this thread! (Dotted) Also I figured I would add my own rules bit for GMs/Writers out there.

The following rule is for adding class levels to monsters and I've overlooked it up until recently:

"The first step of this process is to modify the creature's ability scores. Creatures with class levels receive +4, +4, +2, +2, +0, and –2 adjustments to their ability scores, assigned in a manner that enhances their class abilities."

So be sure to further up the stats of a monster before adding levels to it!

I'm sorry but I need a bit of clarification here: Does this mean that a monster has to take a -2 penalty to a stat every time it levels up? I'm not sure I understand the logic of that.

Where is this rule located; the Bestiary?



it means when you make a monter a pc, you take the monsters stats, giv it +$ to any 2 stats, +2 to any 2 stats, and -2 to a stat, rather than assign ability scores and racial modifiers

so for example a creature with 20 20 20 20 20 20 for stats would have scores of 24 24 22 22 20 18

This is subtly incorrect. Those are the adjustments when you give a monster pc class levels, not when you make it a pc.

Exactly! This is more for GMs who want to assign class levels to monsters not necessarily converting monsters for PC use. These extra stat modifiers allow GMs to give monsters a decent modifier for classes they may not be optimized for. :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I adore this thread! (Dotted) Also I figured I would add my own rules bit for GMs/Writers out there.

The following rule is for adding class levels to monsters and I've overlooked it up until recently:

"The first step of this process is to modify the creature's ability scores. Creatures with class levels receive +4, +4, +2, +2, +0, and –2 adjustments to their ability scores, assigned in a manner that enhances their class abilities."

So be sure to further up the stats of a monster before adding levels to it!

That would have been much, much better than what actually ended up in print.

I don't dare dispute what our Paizo(Paizonian?) Overlords do. I just hope they don't get angry for me posting those spoiler blurbs from my original manuscript... >.>

Chris Kenney wrote:
...Wow. Just....wow. Thanks for the warning on one particular scenario to avoid. I already did City of Strangers (and I damn near walked from the first one before my metagamey side justified that the writers couldn't possibly actually be doing what it looks like, and I was absolutely needed to make a fully legal table) but the Infernal Vault one just plain takes the cake.

Sadly, this was a problem with the original concept I had VS. what ended up in the published scenario after edits. I really hope people don't avoid it based off this one omission :$

In any event, I've attached my suggested corrections below as a spoiler.

Infernal Vault fix:
The documents were not supposed to be 'claimed' but instead preserved by PCs related to Cheliax. This means that Cheliax PCs would have the same goal as the Society (to stop Celeena), just with the added difficulty of ensuring the documents weren't destroyed by something like a stray fireball.

Instead I reworded the handout to say:

Ensure the documents Celeena searches for are not destroyed, at least in the hands of the Society we can be certain they will not end up with our enemies.

Then changed the Mission to:

PCs from the Cheliax faction who ensure that the documents on Celeena Deckland are not destroyed in act 3 earn 1 Prestige Award.

I hope that helps? :)

jjaamm wrote:
quick question - in the over all mission it says that pcs need to stop the information from getting into cheliax hands-- cheliaxian mission is ti get the info from bbeg and turn them over. would this not defeat the over all mission?

Good question!

The intended result was that Cheliax is concerned only with the documents surviving, not necessarily their acquisition. The notes about Cheliax acquiring the documents were added in the final version, and certainly don't fit with the Pathfinder Society's goals.

In any event, the documents need only survive the final encounter, so they can be 'acquired' later by Chelish agents.

I just have to say how AWESOME it is to hear that you're all having fun with my first scenario! Brings a tear to my eye *sniffle sniffle*...

On a side note...

1) I agree that the Black Tentacles is a bit brutal... I think you can all go give Joshua a big hug for that one!

2) (I think it's ok for me to post about this, if not Josh can smite me) There was a small mix up in editing it seems, as the original text I submitted went along the lines of: "Twenty feet down from the trapdoor is a confined square room, cut out of stone. At the opposite end of the ladder stands a large mosaic of stone. The stonework is designed with an inlay of several faceless people worshiping at the top, and condemning at the bottom."

Thanks again for all the lovely stories. It's awesome seeing my work hurting players all across the world! ;)

yoda8myhead wrote:
Welcome to the PFS authors' club, Thurston!

Joshua bribed me with ice cream...

Draeke Raefel wrote:
It would count as whatever type the natural attack normally is. I.e. if you normally only have 1 secondary attack, then you get a second secondary attack at -5( total -10 ). If your only natural attack is a primary attack, you get a second primary attack at -5.

Ok, that makes sense and how I would rule it as well.

Now I wonder how these stack with monster feats! :)

I think the wording of primary/secondary attacks is pretty well written up for the eidolons, my confusion just stems from the Multiattack ability. When you have less than 3 attacks, it states that you can make a 'second' (not secondary) attack at a -5 penalty with any of your existing natural attacks. So...

1) Does it mean I can pick a primary or secondary attack?
2) Do I get half strength on this attack or just -5?
3) If I use this second attack with a Secondary Weapon, would it be at -10 (Penalty from ability plus Secondary Natural Attack penalty)?

I guess what really is at the core of my question, does the multiattack ability treat the additional attack as a secondary natural attack, or just a second attack with that weapon? There's a difference there. :)

Draeke Raefel wrote:
Nymor wrote:
2) If i'm not wrong, each attack other than that you choose as "primary" is a "secondary attack" that suffer the -5 penality and half strength bonus
Correct. All secondary attacks are at -5 and only add 1/2 str. All primary attacks add full strength and have full bab. the only exception is if you only have 1 attack and it is a primary attack. In which case you add 1-1/2 str bonus to your damage.

True, for monsters at least. However the Multiattack Eidolon ability states...

Multiattack: An eidolon gains Multiattack as a bonus feat if it has 3 or more natural attacks and does not already have that feat. If it does not have the requisite 3 or more natural attacks (or it is reduced to less than 3 attacks), the eidolon instead gains a second attack with one of its natural weapons, albeit at a –5 penalty.

While the -5 is mentioned there is no reference to half strength. My question is if this is an oversight or not.

I figure I'd post my Eidolon here for consumption by the masses. I'm sure there are some things that are wrong here, so please let me know!

Infernal Eidolon
LE large Outsider (serpentine body)
Init +5; Senses Perception +9, Darkvision

AC 27, touch 15, flat-footed 21 (+12 natural, +5 dex, +1 dodge, -1 size)
hp 85 (9d10+50)
Fort +7, Ref +11, Will +6 (+10 vs. enchantment)
SQ Evasion, Link, Share Spells,

Speed 20 ft. climb 20ft
Reach 10ft
Melee +15/+10 bite (2d6+7 +1d6 cold + poison), +10 tail slap (1d8+3 + 1d6 cold + Grab)

Constrict An eidolon gains powerful muscles that allow it to crush those it grapples. Whenever the eidolon successfully grapples a foe using the grab evolution, it deals additional damage equal to the amount of damage dealt by the attack used by the grab evolution (1d8+3). This evolution is only available to eidolons of the serpentine base form.

Eidolon Poison
type poison (injury); save Fort Negates (DC 21); frequency 1/round for 4 rounds; Effect 1d4 str; cure 1 save.

Str 24, Dex 20, Con 18, Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 12
Base Atk +9; CMB +17 (+21 when grappling); CMD 23
Feats Ability Focus (Poison), Vital Strike, Dodge, Mobility, Combat Reflexes
Skills 36 Acrobatics+14, Escape Arist+14, Intimidate+10, Perception+9, Stealth+14, Sense Motive+9,

Evolutions (14pts) +2 Dext <2>, Constrict <2>, Energy Attack Cold <2>, Grab <2>, Poison <2>, Large <3>, Improved Damage Bite <1>

Some questions / comments below...

1) What is the limitation on giving an Eidolon Monster Feats? In the above example I did something tame like giving it the Ability Focus Feat, but would Improved Damage (an Evolution) stack with Improved Natural Attack (a feat). The same goes with Natural armor feats...

2) The Multiattack ability (not feat) seems awkwardly worded. There's no reference to which attack can be made at a -5 penalty, and there's no mention of suffering a half strength bonus. Is this intentional?

3) Making a creature large gives it several abilities normally not associated with such creatures (+2 AC for example). The wording here is very specific on what the Eidolon gets, but there's no reference to Reach. Does an Eidolon need to have the reach evolution to get 10ft reach as a large creature?

Skeld wrote:

That was the first thing i noticed too, "Melee attacks made against the cavalier, except those made by the target of his challenge, treat the cavalier as if he is f lanked." That seems like a huge potential boon to Rogues. I'd rather see it say foes other than the challenged get a +2 circumstance bonus to attacks made against the Cav, but to say treat as flanked is begging the Rogue to come over and kidney-stab the Cav. If nothing else, a parenthetical saying "treat as flanked (except with regard to the Rogue's Sneak Attack and similar abilities)" seems to be in order.

Beyond that I think not being able to turn off or redirect the challenge is an issue.


PS: I'm at work so none of my comments have any playtest behind them.

Mechanically I am in complete agreement with you. The potential for rogues to jump the Cavalier is way too high in the current rendition of the rules.

However, flavor wise I do believe the sneak attacking rogues really would be the bane of a Cavalier's life. After all, the Cavalier is basically a knight in shining armor, going off to challenge his enemies in noble combat... then along comes the sneak rogue to ruin his day. It almost seems too perfect to change! :D

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I am thinking that the oracle class will probably get Eschew Materials as a bonus feat.

As for the divine focus needed for spellcasting, this is something I am still working on. I am thinking that it will be a symbol of the oracles focus, like an actual bone for the bones focus.


Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I've always given sorcerers Eschew Materials for free, so I am a big fan of giving this option to Oracles as well.

As for the focus, it's a slippy slope... If you make it something basic, then it could be very easy for some Foci like Bone/Stone, while others such as wind are more obscure. Where one oracle could pickup any old bone or stone, the wind oracle may need a chime or flute.

Another alternative may be to have the focus be something attuned to the caster, something they can do while resting for spells.

Personally I'd just wave the requirement for a focus entirely. Part of the joys of being a spontaneous caster is the lack of any items aside from your own will.

As a general, I think Charisma works best. It's something that's been used for spontaneous spell casters for a while, and does a decent job of capturing the 'force of will' aspect of spontaneous casters Vs. prepared casters.

Despite minor complications, you could have the stat based on the selected Foci. Something like Stone could be related to STR while Wind could be related to Dex. Would lead to some very 'out there' builds for Oracles...

Just a random thought!

Thanks for the stone reply Jason. I made the assumption that the rock was a weapon size, so like a medium shortsword VS a tiny shortsword. Not sure if that needs to be clarified, or if I'm just dumb ;)

I agree that the challenge should be clarified as there are quite a few loopholes for that. How I would view it, is if the target can see the Cavalier, he can issue a challenge based on body language and gestures (fits with his demoralizing abilities). If the target cannot see the Cavalier (blinded, hidden, etc, etc) but understand his speech then the challenge should apply, as the target is actively aware of it.

Let me play Devil's Advocate to my own above examples:

Say the Cavalier is under the effects of a Greater Invisibility and does not speak the language of his target; how exactly would the challenge work in that situation?

Set wrote:
Rugult wrote:
One thing about the Foci of Bones is that it is possible to make a 20th level Oracle that has nothing to with controlling/creating Undead,

Except for those pesky Foci spells of animate dead, create undead and create greater undead, which the Oracle specifically cannot swap out.

Yeah, I noticed that you could cherry pick Revelations, but that still doesn't make the Bones Oracle fit the Pharasman undead-hating ideal.

It's a case of flavor text forbidding a class from using class abilities that it is specifically granted (either via the Death Domain, for a Cleric, or the Bones Focus, for an Oracle). Quirky.

Oh, very quirky! As I mentioned, you'd also need to get GM permission to swap out those spells (and if generous, give you another bonus on that Final Revelation).

It's not like the Oracle is an ideal Pharasma only class, but if you were really insistent on it, you could bulldoze your way against the actual description of the class and make a strict Pharasma Oracle. Though personally I think the Bones Foci works very well with the gods they've decided on. While Urgathoa and Pharasma are opposing forces with different views, they both hover around death... the force which the Oracle would revere.

Are you referring to the ability to 'explode rock' as a swift action, then pick up a rock and throw it as a weapon? I actually like that mental image, and would be a pretty cool combo. Though from how it's worded, the rocks disappear next round as the difficult terrain is gone by then.

I suppose my added question to this would be if the Rock Throwing line of "Up to two categories SMALLER than your size". Does that mean a medium character could throw a tiny rock? Or should it be larger than your size? Not too sure why this was specifically mentioned, because I always assumed a medium character could throw a tiny rock...

Jam412 wrote:
Set wrote:

My first thoughts include;

Lotta undead-creating stuff for those undead-despising Pharasmans in the Bones focus. But that's more of an annoying limitation with the reigning death-goddess, than anything wrong with the class.

Doesn't this seem like some kind of recurring bug? Why does Pharasma keep getting pigeon holed with undead creation? It was weird enough that this error (I assume that's what it is) wasn't fixed in the core domains, but now it's being repeated. Strange..

More on topic: these classes are very cool so far. haven't finished with the Cavalier but the Oracle seems really fun and super flavorful. Really like the curses.

One thing about the Foci of Bones is that it is possible to make a 20th level Oracle that has nothing to with controlling/creating Undead, as there are seven different revelations you can use that do not involve undead:

-Armor of Bones (quite appropriate)
-Bleeding Wounds
-Death's Touch
-Near Death
-Soul Siphon
-Spirit Walk
-Voice of the Grave

The Final Revelation does grant the ability to Animate Dead, but it is by no means the only part of the revelation. Instead I'd just be happy with the Power Word kill as well as bleed/stabilize. The only other Undead creating abilities would be the bonus spells, which could easily be substituted by agreeable GMs.

That being said, I think we need to look at the Oracle class as described. An Oracle does not specifically worship Pharasma, instead he/she worships an ideal like Undeath, which obviously could involve summoning Undead. As per my notes above, one could make an Oracle devoted specifically to Pharasma with appropriate abilities.

Thraxus wrote:

Is it me or does the sentence "Once per combat, a cavalier can

challenge a foe to combat." sound strange.

I know it is a nitpick, but I think once per encounter might sound better.

One other thing that I noticed was that with a little asian flavoring, the cavalier might serve as a passable samurai (especially a more courtly version). I am not sure about the mounted combat bit, but it might still work.

I'm actually a fan of Combat instead of encounter. Encounter can be hard to quantify where combat typically runs until players are no longer acting in initiative order.

A good example of this might be a fight where the party has to battle through some minor enemies only to have the Big Bad show up immediately after. I wouldn't want the Cavalier to get jerked around because the GM considers it 'one encounter'.

Personally I'd consider it from rolling initiative up until players stop acting on a round/round basis. Obviously YMMV between different GMs, but I think combat is a good basis.

Quick Glance...

Cavalier looks like it will be a huge benefit to have in the party, due to his ability to single out opponents and help 'the team' take them down. Not sure my players will enjoy fighting them, but I think it will lead to some very interesting tactical encounters.

Oracle looks solid, and I love the idea that they have flaws/perks with the curses that they endure. I can see quite a bit of modularity with this class in terms of new curses/foci that can be added as time goes on.

Very much looking forward to using these!

If you're looking for that 'style' then I cannot recommend Eberron enough! It's got a high fantasy feel while taking elements from Indiana Jones and other pulpish settings. Random but flavorful locales like the Lightning Rail and Stormreach give GMs ample opportunity to setup long term campaigns where players can move to and from drastically different locations.

Luckily I'm not going to be using any of the new classes until Tuesday at the earliest. Still, would have been nice to start off the work day with some new classes to read over...

Ah well, I guess Paizo is still consuming the fruit platter! :)

For my first post to the Pathfinder boards, I thought I'd talk a bit about Clegg Zincher. My party has recently finished Adventure 2 and well into Adventure 3 at this point, so a lot has happened. The biggest plot point so far has been their idolization of Clegg. Every time my party hears of some terrible act performed by Mr. Zincher, they are genuinely impressed with how awesome the man must be. The high point for this was when they heard how Clegg had taken a boat to Devil's Elbow which he seized by brute force.

So at the end of Adventure 2, the party sadly had to fight Clegg in an unfortunate turn of events. A lucky hit from one of the players killed Clegg, though they were sure to bring the island back to Riddleport following their excursion to the island. This is where things got weird...

My players decided it was top priority to bring Clegg back to life, though they lacked the funds to secure a Raise Dead spell. Instead the party druid acquired a scroll of Reincarnate which they intended to use on Clegg in hopes of returning him to his former stature as solid crime boss of Riddleport.

They reincarnated him alright... as a Bugbear! I kid you not, Riddleport's premiere crime lord has returned as a creature that can apparently track by the scent of fear. Now as the party leaves to the Mierani forest, they know they leave Riddleport in safe hands/claws.

With all this in mind, does anyone else have good tales about the next RPG Idol 'Clegg Zincher'?