RPG Superstar 7 Season Marathon Voter. Organized Play Member. 240 posts (723 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters. 11 aliases.
One thing I didn't like about this beginning of adventure path is that it feels unreasonable that the agents of the princess of Taldor are such an inexperienced characters. the same way that the brotherhood of silence would send such weak agents to attack the assembled Senate.
If you're talking about the PCs, remember that they are only some of the agents working for Eutropia, and she only "hires" them after they prove themselves by saving Martella. They start as very low-ranking agents, and are given tasks appropriate to their station.
Arguably, the Brotherhood of Silence only sends those weak agents and initiates after Martella. They have been ordered to take out some of Eutropia's allies, and likely do not know that Martella is working as a spymaster for the princess, merely that they are good friends. Moreover, the BoS has been hired by some of Stavian's agents, so it's also conceivable that they hired lowly assassins to take care of what they assumed was a lowly noble.
Frederico Gomes wrote:
Another thing that is bothering me is that on one side the PCs are supposed to not know Martella's true agenda - 'ensuring that the vote against primogeniture happens without any complications'.
I think this is meant to refer to the fact that Martella is trying to ensure that primogeniture is struck down for Eutropia's sake. Martella wants the PCs to think that her goal is to have the vote pass for her own sake, not for the sake of her benefactor.
Frederico Gomes wrote:
Also, are the PCs supposed to be teleported all at the same time when one of them is struck by one of the stavian agents or they should be teleported separately as each one of them is struck?
As written, it looks like they all teleport at once. As Blue Eyed Devil said, though, you can certainly have them teleport individually, and it may well be more cinematic for it to happen that way. Ultimately, either way works, as the fight is meant to be more of a cinematic fight than a full combat.
So, why would Carrius just step into the role as legitimate heir to the throne when the entire Stavian bloodline claim has been discredited? It seems like Book 6 just ignores this with a hand waving - Carrius seizes the Throne (really? how?). The Ulfen Guard have welcomed him as the heir (really, why? Thought the Stavian line was discredited). And all the other squabbling claims to the throne just evaporated into thin air? Seriously?
In my mind, Eutropia and Martella spent most of Book 5 attempting to garner allies and retake Taldor - starting with Oppara - through non-violent means, in case the PCs fail to find the Mantle of Kings. Its existence is, after all, a rumor, and the PCs are dispatched in the hopes that those rumors are true. It is certainly no guarantee, though, and for Eutropia to place her claim entirely on finding the relic would be naive.
By winning over Oppara, she has unintentionally laid the groundwork for a different Stavian when she is assassinated.
I don't think Carrius has the sudden backing of all of Taldor, merely the backing of the populace of Oppara. Personally, I plan to have Carrius retake Oppara somewhat by military force (similar to how Julius Caesar took Rome by forcing much of the Senate and standing Consul to abandon the city, gaining the support of the common folk) and with some help of previously dispatched Immaculate Circle agents. The Circle wanted to place Carrius on the throne, and would likely have taken steps to ensure that outcome after Eutropia's death. This will help give the feeling that the city is under Martial Law, and will hopefully help show that even though Carrius has amassed support, he and the Six Legends won't change Taldor for the better.
I think as long as the Mantle of Kings is used to show Eutropia's legitimacy after Carrius and the Six Legends are defeated, the PC's efforts in Book 5 still have significant impact.
Just about finished with this book (just need to have the final fight and the "wrap-up" scene at the end). Next session should be session #8 iirc, with each session being about 4 hours.
Loving this book on first skim; I've pretty much read through the book but haven't delved too deep into the subsystem presented in the Agents of Change section.
There's a lot to like here. I've always been a fan of games like the Telltale games and Mass Effect, so seeing choices like the one between the major CN or LN NPCs is quite appealing. The "Judging Crimes" events have several different ways they can go, with some options essentially being beneficial in-game, but having unsatisfactory ethical conclusions; it'll be interesting to see how players react to some of the events where the townfolk are essentially trying to pressure them into killing or banishing people who are actually innocent.
I like that a lot of combat encounters can be avoided outright with proper social grace. It fits the theme of the AP, being more cloak and less dagger, but it looks like there's certainly enough combat to satiate players who appreciate the general strategy that comes with that aspect of the game. Good balance from what I'm seeing.
I've always loved scaling items (Bladebound Magus 4 lyfe!) and think the Relic system is great. The Triumphs feel a bit like Mythic Tiers, and I think it'll be fun for players to see their items suddenly become more powerful as they help Taldor shed some of its stagnation.
On the subject of Mythic, the second section of the book reminds me a bit of Book 4 of Wrath of the Righteous, insofar as it requires PCs to gain reputation through a relatively non-linear sandbox-y manner. It's sort of a collection of short subquests that I think will break up well into sessions of play.
Honestly, just from reading the first two books in this AP it's rapidly becoming one of the APs I'm most excited to run. This may well be the strongest start for an AP for my own personal tastes.
1. Red Mantis Assassin - Rogue: This one is technically a Prestige Class, but it never really felt like it came into its own until UnRogue came out and made it more viable. The flavor is amazing, but the mechanics always felt a bit off. Making this a rogue archetype feels like it'd fix some of the issues with the PrC. On the other hand, this is an alignment-restricted LE class, so perhaps this doesn't need a place in the first few books. But I'd love to see it carry over to 2E!
2. Lore Warden - Fighter: This arechetype creates a nice alternative to the "big stupid fighter" character.
3. Feyspeaker/Skinshaper - Druid: I've always felt that druids and fey both have a sort of supernatural connection to nature and the world around them, yet druids have fairly little of that "fae feel" to them. I feel like combining these two classes into one would keep the feel of an intrigue-based druid that can transform into other humanoid shapes, while adding in a proper fey flavor to the class.
4. Freebooter - Ranger: I love archetypes that open up new ways to use the classes' main class abilities, and Freebooter fundamentally changes the Favored Enemy bonus to act as a sort of inverse inspire courage.
5. Master of Many Styles - Monk: Styles are a nice way to make a monk feel unique. MoMS opens up a viable alternative to only following a single style.
"why should we support you and not just go to the your enemys, tell them where you are and be rewarded when THAT new kingdom is formed?"
The easiest answer is "For the glory of Taldor!"
Seriously, her ascension is the most likely to end in stability and improvement for a country that has seen stagnation and decline for centuries. Your PCs should have at least the barest sense of national pride.
There's also really nothing to sell. Eutropia has been trying to reach a council with Pythareus, and even if you leave Eutropia's meeting and travel to a place to send a message to him - or somehow locate a Pythareus loyalist - that message is going to be news of her previous location. "We met at this house in Oppara one time" is not a very profitable piece of information. If she wanted her location secret and the PCs refuse her offer, all she needs to do is walk out of the townhouse and find a new location.
Moreover...she's in Oppara, and she's trying to rally support for her claim. She hasn't fled the city, so she's not really in hiding. Pythareus is the one who left for Zimar to gather support. Even if your PCs are simply in it for the potential to gain political influence and money, Eutropia is their best bet at this point.
And honestly, I've read and re-read pages 52-53 many times and don't see any real evidence to support the claim that she's a spoiled brat. At worst, she is underprepared.
This is all from an in-game view, of course. There is the well-put meta reason Hourai lists above. Players should be encouraged to make a PC that will want to follow the adventure's path, whether out of loyalty, hope for personal gain, or something else.
I wanted to touch on "the Eutropia problem" presented by Damian. While I disagree with many of his points, I do feel there is validity to them as well.
Hoof, this turned out longer than I thought. Spoilered to prevent page-stretchin'.
Spoiler:
Damian Van Moorganrood wrote:
im not sure what you gage as realistic or where you read that "she has her own strength of character and acts with thought and forethought" when the only concrete thing that is presented by her is that she'll figure out what she will do after she gets the crown (no plan, thoughtles) supprised the pc's would even ask for a reward (condescending and selfish considering that at this point she is in need of allies and not really in any position to bargin, 2 decades of political work would clue her into that as well as the fact that it's writen that she very much for the common folk, and would know that they would ask to be compensated) and the only part of her that can be gained by the pc's is that she likes her dog (personality shallower than a kiddy pool). besides, that conflicts with the idea that she molds her future based off the pc's actions, is she a leader with her own strength of character or not?.
Eutropia is, in a sense of political power, somewhat similar to a royal bastard or fourth son. Prior to the vote to end primogeniture, she stands to gain nothing when Stavian III dies. She is not a male heir, and as such will not inherit anything. It is a bit unclear exactly how this works, though; with no male heir, will Eutropia become a figurehead to be married off, or does the royal line die out instead going passing rulership to a prominent senator or distant relative?
In any case, this is why I feel her lack of planning can be somewhat forgiven. She was never going to be in a position of significant power in the first place, and the vote to end primogeniture was really her first hope at becoming anything more than a figurehead with limited influence. I do agree that having what should be one of the most charismatic and influential NPCs response to "So what'cha gonna do once you're Grand Princess?" be a shrug is a bit disappointing, and I think the AP would have benefited from a short side bar on making Eutropia your own. Then again, perhaps there will be more hints towards this in future parts of the AP.
While I do agree with Damian on the above point, I must say I disagree that she seems surprised that the PCs ask for a reward, nor did I read her response as condescending. I will, however, state as a brief aside that I view "NPC response blocks" such as the one on pages 52-53 in much the same way that I do room description text: something to be read and inspire the GM, but not quoted verbatim, as this leads to an awkward dialogue. All that said, the PCs have been well-paid for their earlier services. They acquired several magic items, and they get paid 2000g to split for saving Martella in addition to the 500g each (plus an extra 150g if they all succeeded at their missions in chapter 1). Assuming a 4-player group, that's 1000g-1150g each, and at 4th level, that's a tidy sum. And on top of that, she promises them future payment for future services, so I'm not sure where Damian is getting the idea that she is surprised they ask for a reward. They got one and she promises more in the future.
Moreover, Eutropia is correct. The benefit of having a Grand Princess in your debt should be self-evident, and there isn't much benefit (aside from payment) she can provide if she doesn't take the throne. Her family holdings are locked away, and she cannot access it in the current state of affairs. And honestly, while she is desperate for allies...she is desperate for powerful allies. The PCs have at this point shown that they can hold their own in a relatively forgotten dungeon, and spearheaded the effort to save Martella. This shows they are resourceful, but they are still only level 4 PCs without major connections; they honestly could use Eutropia more than she needs them at this point. It simply isn't worth it for her to promise vast wealth or noble titles to what are at this point rank-and-file spies.
Finally, I have an opinion that may be unpopular, but it is my general belief about NPCs in pre-written material. It is on the AP to provide the background and vague personality of NPCs, but it is the onus of the GM to flesh out these NPCs and make them interesting. An NPC doesn't really need anything more than a few personality descriptors to latch on to - haughty, stoic, flamboyant, etc. - as well as a a short backstory to showcase why they hold the motivations they have. Again, I agree that it would have been beneficial to include a short piece stating that Eutropia is something of a blank canvas for the GM to fill in, but all NPCs are at least partially blank canvases. I would argue that no matter how well-written or interesting an NPC backstory or statblock, they will require additional work by the GM to "bring them to life." Breathing life into the world and its inhabitants is one of the greatest pleasures and burdens of being a GM.
In any case, I really liked the AP as it was presented, and my group has been wanting to play a more political game for a while, so I'm pretty sure I'll be running this one once the other books (and the Player's Guide) come out and I've a better sense of the full adventure. Looking forward to the next book!
If you could say Yes or No to the above question and why you think that way, it would help me to understand your argument better. I'll answer it first.
I think once you answer that we can have a more productive discussion as I'm still not sure what exactly you are arguing.
I'll probably regret this, but hey. Boredom.
"Obey me" is a single command that compels multiple services. Fortunately, the spell calls out both requirements, with "a magical command" and "some service" both being singular.
And no, that is not "how the English language works", given that I've broken out the dictionary three times in this thread to disagree with you.
You really need to climb off the "100% RAW" high horse, because it's not helping your case.
Actually, in the PF book Liar's Blade...
Book Stuff!:
Zaqen is under a geas to completely follow Obed's every order. She makes it clear that she literally can not defy him, and the geas apparently has no "end date."
So while I wouldn't take Pathfinder Tales at 100% face value for rules interpretation, there's definitely an instance of an official Paizo product with a character using a geas that is essentially "follow my orders." Perhaps even so far as "obey my orders to both the spirit and the letter." That said...
Going back to the interpretation thing, everyone is free to interpret the rules as they wish, but there is really only one definition that would be Rules as Intended. I think that rather than picking apart the English language to decide how the spell works, it would be easier to simply look at similar spells, and look at the intent behind geas/quest.
It's essentially a more powerful version of dominate monster in just about every way: no saving throw, infinite duration, no Sense Motive to determine the spell is in place, difficult to break free, etc. It has really only one limitation. Casting time.
This is the main reason why I wouldn't allow the limited wish into geas to work at my table. It really piddles with game balance if used in certain situations. Anything that can bypass so many foes in such an absurd way would be too silly to allow under most circumstances. I would need to have a lot of confidence in the players that they were doing it for the sake of a game that is more fun for everyone at the table, GM included.
This setting. It's basically just a city that is built around a sealed tarrasque, and "mines" it for resources. I haven't run it - not out of lack of interest, but out of lack of time. Once my current game ends, one of the players wanted to step up and GM Wrath of the Righteous. Sadly, I'm starting a rather intensive school program, so I won't have time to run a game alongside his WotR...heck, I might not even have time to play in WotR.
This one's not mine, but one of my favorites was a post by TheSheDM on Reddit:
"One of my players played a pixie paladin. Yes, in full plate armor. No, he could not fly while wearing it. His mount was a blink dog. His name was Sir Princely Hero and his dog was Trusty Steed.
The concept was that this pixie fell in love with classic fairy tales where the hero rescues the damsel in distress and defeats evil and defends good and virtue! This sounded like great fun to him, so in the greatest game of lets-pretend ever played he became Sir Princely Hero.
To make things even better, he decided he needed a damsel, because all heros had a princess or a lady or a lovely peasant girl that they protected. He also understood women had a "virtue" (aka virginity) that needed protecting from scoundrels and theives, but as pixies are genuine innocents, he didn't really understand what "virtue" was but he knew it was important. After much thinking (about 5 seconds or so) he decided that virtue must mean a woman's panties. So our chivalrous pixie introduced himself to the party by finding the party's leader (a female wizard) and solemnly vowing to defend her panties from any unscrupulous rogues that might seek to steal her virtue.
Later when the player wanted to retire the character, it was declared that Sir Princely Hero had tired of his game of knight-in-shining armor and decided to become a pirate instead. He declared himself Captain Sir Dashing Hero, renamed his dog Trusty Ship, and was last seen 'sailing' off into the forest with the wizard's panties as a flag."
Player says: "What's the enemy's AC?"
Player means: "I'm trying to decide if I should use Power Attack and hope you're tired enough to slip up and tell me."
Player says: "Does a twenty-one hit?"
GM says: "Yes."
Player says: "Oh, wait, I forgot to add in my favored enemy bonus. Does a twenty-three hit?"
Player means: "I know I hit already, but I want everyone at the table to know that my character is 'Good at Things.'"
Player says: "I got a 10 on my Fort save."
Player means: "Where did I put my back-up character's sheet?"
this thread is going to be a blunderbuss packed full of drama llamas and hurt feelings
That's what the popcorn is for!
In all seriousness, I would like to hear what problems others have had to deal with, and especially how they dealt with them. It is extremely hard to tell someone that, while you enjoy them under most circumstances, you do not like their behavior in a specific instance. I would like to know how others have acknowledged that discrepancy, and if anyone was able to somehow manage a situation where both parties were able to walk away relatively happy, I would especially love to hear how they managed it.
Just last week, my party and I are in a dungeon filled with demonic apes and clerics of Demogorgon. We finish an encounter and then decide to move on. My party leader tells us all to move very quietly and carefully (Stealth checks). I immediately call out, "I start singing to 'inspire competence, +4 everyone.' My whole group just stared at me for like 10 seconds waiting for some sign that I'm joking. Sadly...I'm not. Then it hits me.
I feel obligated to mention Olenna Tyrell from Game of Thrones. Or rather, from A Song of Ice and Fire, as she has thus far appeared more formidable in the books than in the TV show.
Minor Spoilers:
Olenna serves as an excellent foil to Cersei Lannister. Where Cersei tries to gain and solidify power by controlling people through her blatant sexuality and with outright threats, Olenna is an old lady who is the true leader of the Tyrell family. She rules through subtle manipulations, and appears to be a very sweet old lady. Beneath it all, she is obviously one of the most cunning players in the "Game of Thrones."
Man. Almost all of my games have been pretty positive. I've had a few bad sessions, but usually the players / GMs knew about the problems and rectified it afterwards. That said, I do game with someone who is sometimes a bit of a problem player.
I had one session wherein a player drank somewhere around a dozen bottles of alcoholic apple cider, and spent most of the session getting cheese poof powder all over...well, everything, really. I had to hand wash my dice after that session, and throw out my character sheet. The player in question ended the session face-down on the carpet - he had somehow ended up under his chair - attempting to make his dice rolls in that position. We decided it was for the best to cut that session short.
The same player made a character that had the backstory of "I have amnesia and can't remember anything about my past!", and wanted the GM to somehow work his backstory into the adventure path. In other words, I think he wanted the GM to write his backstory for him.
That character was at least better than his original two characters. The first one was a Grippli Monk, who he played because he wanted to be a punchy frog. His backstory was non-existent, and his personality was cultivated so that the player could do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted. Outside of combat, the character mostly just sat around doing frog things. His next character was a Tengu Monk, with much the same problem. He mostly acted like a crow, yelling, "Corn!" at random intervals. He completely dumped charisma, so he never participated in anything until it was time to hit stuff.
Speaking of magical Harrys, both Harry Potter and Ronald Weasley have to deal with broken wands at some point in their adventures. Unlike Dresden, Potter cannot cast spells without his wand.
One of my players recently convinced a two-headed ettin guard that they were, "there from the union," and that they were going to try to survey conditions and make sure that the workers - the ettin included - were being paid their proper wages. He even played to the ettin's greed by stating that, since it had two heads, it should be paid double. After a few excellent Diplomacy and Bluff rolls, the ettin was thoroughly convinced that it was underpaid and overworked.
Or, at least, one head did. One of the rolls was so close to success that I decided that one of the heads fell for it, while the other remained suspicious. The party sorcerer then cast the unadulterated loathing spell on one head, with the target of its hatred being the other head. This started the ettin arguing with itself, eventually leading to one of the heads knocking the other out (with the aid of the party). The remaining head - the one which believed the party almost unconditionally at this point - allowed the party to pass, even giving them a gift for granting it a temporary reprieve from its "stinky, stupid, smelly second head."
This sounds more like a metagaming problem than an alignment debate.
Just from what the OP has described, I have plenty of Neutral and Good NPCs who would object to it.
If the paladin knows what you are doing in character, and the paladin tries to stop you in character from doing what you are doing, then that is perfectly fine.
But that doesn't sound like what is happening. It sounds like the paladin's player knows what your character is doing, and is trying to break up the party by complaining to the GM out of character based entirely on metagame knowledge!
That is not acceptable behavior for a player, regardless of whether their character is a paladin. If the GM says your alignment is neutral, then your alignment is neutral. The paladin's player knows what the GM thinks, and so knows you are neutral. Alignment is ultimately the GM's call, not the call of forumites, or of the other players!
From just what you've described, the paladin character doesn't know anything. He/she shouldn't be involved at all!
This isn't an in-character issue, it is an OOC issue. From your description (which, of course, is just one side of the story), another PLAYER is metagaming in an effort to punish your character, based only on OOC knowledge.
And, in the case that the paladin character does know about your scheme...he can object to it in character, but it is not acceptable for him to 'haggle with the GM' OOC over your character's alignment.
The main problem is that if the OP's character is, in fact, evil, he would detect as such to the paladin, which would significantly change the paladin's in-game interactions with the OP's character. If the paladin currently doesn't know about the situation in-game, the evil aura should be enough to at least trigger some suspicions.
GMs aren't infallible, either. The GM certainly has the final call, and if the GM says the OP's character's alignment is neutral, that should end the debate. That doesn't mean the GM should completely ignore a player's concerns that someone is committing evil acts while keeping the "benefit" of being neutral.
The problem is that I am running an AP, so the as-written monsters don't really function in a lot of cases. I'm fine with running a heavily modified version, but it is much easier to simply use the errata and run the encounters as they are written.
The main problem is that I need to scale up encounters based on one player, which makes the encounters rather unfair to the rest of the party, especially if the Craner is knocked unconscious, hit with a status effect, etc. I feel like I'm punishing the party because of one...
Alot of things in the game will break an AP it's not hard to do and it's not limited to crane style monks. Laziness and GMing do not work together this has always been true.
Again, my problem is not "man, it sucks having to modify encounters." It's the fact that I feel like one player has forced me into what is essentially an arms race to continually scale up monsters, while ensuring that those monsters don't outshine the rest of the party.
And while a lot of things can break APs, its usually a combination of spells, feats, or somesuch that breaks it, rather than a single feat (even if the feat is part of a feat chain).
Add a caster to the all melee enemy group. Oh man, Crane Wing guy will shut down that one T-Rex? Add another that will attack the rest of the party or gang up on him. You don't have to completely rewrite encounters here.
Problem is, adding in another T-Rex takes a CR 9 encounter up to CR 11. That's a decent jump in difficulty when one character is problematic, and this is my main problem with Crane Wing. It makes it that much more difficult to balance an encounter, because scaling monsters up or adding in more monsters can potentially lay waste to the rest of the party who has their front-liner tied up. If the T-Rexes are only attacking the Craner, that's fine until one hits and uses its grab/swallow whole, and then there are two T-Rexes that turn towards the rest of the party that no longer have their "defense guy."
Alternatively you can not throw in single solo boss mobs?
I mean really it's a fairly well known fact that a solo boss is a joke in terms of difficulty relative to it's CR simply as a result of action economy so if that was your master plan it was a crappy idea before Crane Style even got involved. The only difference is that IF your player uses crane style that single hit that would probably have to take him from roughly 100-0 hp in order for the boss to be a real challenge does nothing.
Frankly I don't see a problem with DMs being punished for bad encounter design.
The problem is that I am running an AP, so the as-written monsters don't really function in a lot of cases. I'm fine with running a heavily modified version, but it is much easier to simply use the errata and run the encounters as they are written.
The main problem is that I need to scale up encounters based on one player, which makes the encounters rather unfair to the rest of the party, especially if the Craner is knocked unconscious, hit with a status effect, etc. I feel like I'm punishing the party because of one person's actions.
Your comment just highlights how silly it is to be nerfing martials
Speaking as a GM, this buffs my martial monsters. I've taken to throwing more and more casters at the party because of the Crane Style feat chain, just to keep combat interesting.
If I remember correctly, its the GMs job to keep the game balanced, not the game.
Point is, as someone who runs a non-PFS game, I need to either let my party get away with using Crane Style to out-defend monsters, or step up the monsters to the point where I'm doing one of three things:
1. Add in more caster enemies
2. Give monsters more iterative attacks/add in more monsters
3. Give monsters Crane Style (which feels goofy and nerfs the party martials)
I'm not a fan of any of those three options, as they mean that if I drop the monk, the rest of the party is easy prey. Honestly, the easiest way I see to keep the game balanced is to eliminate (or alter) the Crane Style feat chain.
EDIT: Also, when there's a public play version such as PFS, it IS the game's job to keep the game balanced. At the very least, I feel like Old Crane Wing should have been banned from PFS.
Your comment just highlights how silly it is to be nerfing martials
Speaking as a GM, this buffs my martial monsters. I've taken to throwing more and more casters at the party because of the Crane Style feat chain, just to keep combat interesting.
1. I hope you aren't insinuating that more nerfs on the way, because count me out. I'm not interested in that kind of pathfinder.
I'm fairly certain that he just meant that the argument "but class X has an OP skill too!" doesn't justify keeping in an overpowered skill, even if it's on a so-called underpowered class.
Blind-Fight can be taken at level 1. The spell true strike is a first level spell. Moreover, concealment comes up more often at higher levels.
My point again is that there's no "backdoor" to getting around Crane Wing. It simply blocks an attack, and it will always be chosen to block a successful attack, which is different from maybe causing an attack to miss. It doesn't just guarantee a miss, it guarantees that a success becomes a miss, and the user gets to pick which success.
Please show me what CR 1 enemies have Blindfight. I'd be really interested in knowing. True Strike takes a round of set up.
Concealment puts another layer of defense making it far more effective. They have to hit you first to check for Concealment.
PCs are a CR 1 enemy that can have Blind-Fight. What does that have to do with the price of fish?
I'm still not buying into the argument of "Crane Style was balanced because concealment is in the game." Eliminating a success - guaranteed - with no way to bypass it is much different from a miss chance with workarounds.
My original point about concealment was simply that Crane Wing can eliminate a critical hit entirely, every time provided it is up. Nothing else in the game, as far as I can tell can do that as a guarantee.
Concealment has multiple ways to counter it; Blind-Fight, blind sight/sense, true seeing, true strike, etc. Like you said, Crane Wing lets you ignore true strike. Concealment doesn't. Moreover, it is a miss chance, not an automatic miss. The concealed creature doesn't get to choose which attacks hit and which don't.
Yes, it's separate from AC, but there are still ways to lessen its impact, or even bypass it entirely.
Concealment also has a better effect. Theres a chance all 5 attacks miss as opposed to Crane Wing's guaranteed 1. It's funny since all the counters you posted are featured at higher levels whereas you can fight something with multiple attacks from level 1.
Blind-Fight can be taken at level 1. The spell true strike is a first level spell. Moreover, concealment comes up more often at higher levels.
My point again is that there's no "backdoor" to getting around Crane Wing. It simply blocks an attack, and it will always be chosen to block a successful attack, which is different from maybe causing an attack to miss. It doesn't just guarantee a miss, it guarantees that a success becomes a miss, and the user gets to pick which success.
I'm running a RotRL game (currently on Book 3), and one of my players - a monk - has the feat. Since most encounters have been mostly melee monsters, it means that any monster that tries to move in to attack has its first attack blocked, and follow-up full attacks could be partially blocked. Since the user of the feat doesn't need to declare which attack they're blocking (for example, "the first attack" or "the bite"), they get to ignore the first attack that would otherwise hit them, not necessarily simply ignore a single attack. That's...pretty strong, especially in games where monsters are largely melee, and the group size of enemies are relatively small.
If monsters attacked with more ranged attacks and spells, this feat would have been more balanced. As it stood, I think it was a bit over-powerful. As it is now, I think it is under-powered, and I do hope that gets fixed, but I feel like the feat needed a nerf.
Yes, it's a nerf that affects monks, but it is one that I think needed to happen. Allowing a PC or NPC to ignore one attack that hits them every combat round with no way to get through ("Oh, you rolled a 20? BLOCK.") seems a bit much. Meanwhile, the monk can still attack with very small penalties (-2 with Crane Style, only a -1 with Crane Riposte).
The errata proposed by the OP seems much more balanced without being a complete nerf to the feat. I haven't thought about it enough to decide if it would cause other problems, though.
I'm surprised that SKR and the RPGSS rules mongers are allowing this public thread. This is just the type of thing that might influence the judges. Maybe the judges didn't even like the item that was on eight different lists and now they are thinking that they made a mistake or that the public might cry foul if it doesn't get a spot. It may very well make the designer of that item feel that he got robbed if the judges don't advance him. I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. It just feels like this data gathering should have stayed in PMs and not posted here.
Hate to say it, but I agree with this sentiment. This thread should probably be deleted. The point of keeping this in PMs was so that it wouldn't bias the judges; public voting is over, but the judges are still deciding. A judge could potentially read this thread (and click the link) and be that much more influenced by the public opinion rather than their own.
Staff of Assessment sounds like an artifact of a long lost empire that relied on the dark and sinister workings of beauracracy in lieu of magic...
"You have been weighed. You have been measured. You have been found wanting...of the form from line B. You'll need to wait there for the next several years."
I don't know if this will help, but here's what I've been doing:
If possible, think about monster concepts when you have free time to think, no matter where you are. I wound up with three rough ideas and one semi-refined idea just brainstorming on the way from my house to work. If you have a good grasp of how monsters work mechanically, it shouldn't take much time to go from a concept to a stat block. Even if you can only spare a few hours per day during that three day period, you should be able to take that concept and turn it into a monster.
For me, at least, the most time consuming element is coming up with the concept and refining it. The mechanics of low-CR monsters aren't terribly time-consuming to research and write, and having a solid concept really helps expedite the process.
I have no clue if this helps anyone even a little bit. Either way, best of luck!
Not sure if I like having the command words be in the item description.
Very much this. If I'm the one crafting the item, I should be able to pick the command word. I think the more of the description you leave to the player, the more customizable the item becomes. I'd hate to need to pass up on an item that helps my character mechanically just because the flavor of the item doesn't fit.
I don't even know how to ask this, but does anyone else experience the format errors in entries "righting" themselves? I just saw an item that I was certain had the "[ b ]" syndrome but now it does not. I am so confused. I need sleep badly.
Actually, I think I know the items in question. There are at least two items with the exact same name that roughly do the same thing. One is formatted decently; the other is not. So if you see one, read it carefully and compare it to the other. They don't match.
Nooooo, this is a pretty uniquely named item. Maybe I'm just remembering it incorrectly. I've seen enough items to be able to claim that. Hey look, I hit Marathon Voter again this year!
Grats!
I think I've noticed a few items with improper format that were cleaned up, but I may just be misremembering. You aren't alone in your insanity, at any rate.
During public voting rounds, contestants are prohibited from any public discussion that could be considered as adding to, expanding upon, or clarifying the content of their current submissions. This applies to (but is not limited to) interviews, personal blogs, and messageboard posts on paizo.com or elsewhere, including the paizo.com discussion thread for the entry itself. Any such discussion may result in disqualification, in the sole discretion of the judges and/or Paizo Publishing.
I loved UC, but I was more focused on the first section than any others. The background generator was really cool, and a very nice inspiration source for new and old players alike. The Kingdom Building rules haven't been something that I've really had a chance to experiment with, since I'm running APs at the moment, and haven't had a chance to touch Kingmaker.
I think the point is that UC essentially provides subsystems, and designing for a specific subsystem is a risky business, as it excludes anyone who is not using that system.
you can go to settings to switch which is your "main" alias.
True, but this won't change an alias into a main account name, or vice versa.
I asked about changing mine in the Website Feedback thread (my original main account named was Perish Song), and someone stealthily changed my main account when I was looking the other way. I'm not sure who specifically you are supposed to ask, but it would seem it can be done.
(Thanks to whoever took the time to fix my problem, btw!)
Tork's Torc of Torque Aura strong torcomancy; CL 5th
Slot neck; Price ZZ gp; Weight 2 lbs.
Description
Originally designed as a party trick at wizardry parties by the great wizard Tork, Submitter's Original Character and Owner of the Hundred Word Backstory, this neckpiece allows the wearer to quickly spin his head around in a full circle. Activation of the torc is a free action that grants the user all-around vision, rendering the wearer immunity to flanking.
The effects of the torc's torque are quite dizzying, and the wearer must succeed a DC 10 Fortitude save while the torc is in use. For every successive round the torc is used, increase the save DC by 1. Failure to save results in the torc's wearer dropping prone as he vomits due to motion sickness, and the torc ceases to function for 24 hours. The wearer may stop the torc's torque as a swift action, at which point he loses the all-around vision ability and the save DC resets.
Construction Requirements Craft Wonderous Item, ki leech; Cost ZZ gp
