The Outcast King

Scissors Lizard's page

48 posts. 9 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist.


Victor Zajic wrote:
It's probably best to come up with a reason the new character became mythic away from the story reason in Wrath. Maybe they are the child or powerful servitor of a god, or a great champion that slew the mythic goblin chief that threated his home village. Maybe the PC's stumble upon a Azlanti champion that was somehow sealed away for all time until they release her. Or maybe the character was empower by a terrible demon ritual, but managed to fight off the abyssal taint and now has to constantly stuggle with their dark side.

These are cool. Thanks!

Hey folks,

As I work my way into book 3 of Wrath, I've had a player decide to depart for thesis land to return at some later date. To keep the party up to speed, we'll most likely replace him with another player.

Anyone have any ideas about how to do this, given the narrative? The events that empowered the party were pretty unique. Would the game still play smoothly with a higher-level non-mythic character tacked on? Is there a smooth way to explain a new mythic character joining in?

I'd like to hear your thoughts/ideas. Thanks!

Rathendar wrote:
Word of Recall.

Perfect. Thanks!

Hi folks,

Is there any kind of spell you can use to bind to a location and then return there, similar to what's possible in some MMOs? Or any sort of teleportation-based escape spell to jump you out of combat aside from Dimension Door, Teleport, and Greater Teleport?


Is it over already? I'd love Champs of Purity.

If not that, then Distant Worlds perhaps?

Valmoon wrote:

Well one question to ask yourself.

#1. If it isn't RAI, would allowing it make the game more fun for the party?

If you find that #1 is yes then allow it. Thats just my $0.02

^ Words of wisdom. I'll probably reduce the crafting time (as per Gunsmithing) to make it take 6 days instead of 1-2 YEARS, but I'm going to require checks for it using Craft(Firearms), as per the table in UC, since I feel like cannons should not be a trivial thing to make, even to someone who knows guns.

Thanks for your input folks.

moon glum wrote:
Sounds like a character with the gunsmithing feat can do it for 3000 gold pieces and 6 days of work with no skill check.

Yeah, RAW makes it sound that way, but I wonder if that's what Paizo intended. It's be nice to get a dev's input on this. Six days and no training to crank out a cannon seems strange.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agree with Mauril on all points. It's much easier to keep a campaign coherent with low-magic than with zero-grav cube world, and a lot of players would like a more gritty, low-magic setting as a lot of fantasy fiction falls in that category.

That's not to say that crazy re-builds aren't fun, it's just understandable that people don't usually want to go that far.

Quantum Steve wrote:

Cannons are not firearms, they're Siege Engines (also found in UC).

Siege Engines can be built with Craft (Siege Engine). Given that Cannons cost 6,000 gp, they would take years to craft using normal craft rules. Best thing to do if you want PCs to be able to build cannons is house-rule it.

Check p. 101 of UC. It lists "siege firearms" separately from "siege engines", and also says that they do NOT use Craft (Siege Engine), but Craft (Firearm) instead. I was with you until I saw this, and since then I'm just confused.

Cannons are in Ultimate Combat. I'm mainly looking for a RAI or generally-accepted ruling on this, or at least some feedback from others, since the RAW never explicitly acknowledges siege firearms, and it seems fishy to allow it.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Ultimate Combat wrote:

Benefit: If you have access to a gunsmith's kit, you can create and restore firearms, craft bullets, and mix black powder for all types of firearms. You do not need to make a Craft check to create firearms and ammunition or to restore firearms.

Crafting Firearms: You can craft any early firearm for a cost in raw materials equal to half the price of the firearm. At your GM’s discretion, you can craft advanced firearms for a cost in raw materials equal to half the price of the firearm. Crafting a firearm in this way takes 1 day of work for every 1,000 gp of the firearm’s price (minimum 1 day).

Crafting Ammunition: You can craft bullets, pellets, and black powder for a cost in raw materials equal to 10% of the price. If you have at least 1 rank in Craft (alchemy), you can craft alchemical cartridges for a cost in raw materials equal to half the price of the cartridge. At your GM’s discretion, you can craft metal cartridges for a cost in raw materials equal to half the cost of the cartridge. Crafting bullets, black powder, or cartridges takes 1 day of work for every 1,000 gp of ammunition (minimum 1 day).

Restoring a Broken Firearm: Each day, with an hour’s worth of work, you can use this feat to repair a single firearm with the broken condition. You can take time during a rest period to restore a broken firearm with this feat.

Special: If you are a gunslinger, this feat grants the following additional benefit. You can use this feat to repair and restore your initial, battered weapon. It costs 300 gp and 1 day of work to upgrade it to a masterwork firearm of its type.

Sorry if this has been addressed before, but I couldn't find anything about it. A gunslinger in my S&S group wants to craft cannons. Is this normally possible with the gunsmithing feat? Can he essentially pop them out at half-price (3k gp) without making checks? Are cannons considered "early firearms" and therefore assumed to be available to someone familiar with such weaponry in Golarion?

Thanks a lot for any help, folks.

Cool. Thanks for the quick reply, folks.

Thanks to the two people who responded in the other copy of this thread. I accidentally double-posted and then deleted the one that actually got replied to.

Will check out adventurer's armory entry on weapon cords =)

A gunslinger player of mine asked me if he could tie his guns to his wrists by ropes, so that he could drop them as a free-action after firing without losing them. He then wants to retrieve them the same way you draw weapons normally. Any advice/thoughts on adjudicating this? Does it sound reasonable to you, and is there anything in RAW I'm overlooking that mentions this technique, or something similar?

Thanks folks.

Young Female Commoner Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Making it a move action to lower instead of standard is another way to soften the impact while still preserving the effect.

That said, I don't know many players who would refuse SR for this reason. It's still easily a net-benefit, and moreso if you face a lot of casters.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Anlerran wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Hey Anlerran, how about you go write a couple of award-winning adventures and then lecture the T-rex on how to do his job?

Because I assumed we were having a civil discussion brought up by the fact that a previous poster said they disliked S&S.

I didn't realise any critique or disagreement would be met by Paizo's equivalent of loudmouth '4Evengers', shouting down any dissenting voices.

Gorb was no less "civil" than you. You called a dev lazy, and Gorb said, "Fine, then let's see you do better." Don't try so hard to sound victimized. I'm having a hard time seeing what you perceive as "loudmouths" trying to silence your dissenting voice.

For what it's worth, I think JJ is right. If you don't get the characters together one way or another, you don't have much of a campaign. That's not lazy, it's just reality. The game doesn't work well with 4 parallel adventures going at the same table. I think most people would agree.

Also, I have few complaints about S&S. I think it's a high-quality AP and my group is having a ton of fun playing it. To each his own, I say.

Edit: Also noticed you removed Gorb's smiley when you quoted him. He wasn't trying to put you down, you know.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My party painted the ship red, and named it the "Sanguine Scream". They attached some screaming bolts to the masts, so that the ship howls vaguely as long as it's moving forward.

Fire Mountain Games wrote:

As the guy who wrote/is writing "Way of the Wicked", I hope that we continue to see adventures and campaigns that allow for being the bad guy. I don't want to always be the villain. I love playing virtuous paragons of truth and justice too.

But once in a while, it is fun to be the bad guy. It is fun to don your spikey black armor and cackle ominiously as those who dared oppose taste your vengeance.

Picked up the PDF of book 1. I'll let you know how it goes. =) Looks like what I was envisioning, but never knew it existed. Thanks!

Yeah, my group has been doing S&S, and it has tickled our villainous sides nicely. It still holds back though.

I'll check out WotW TOZ. Thanks for the tip.

Do one already! Go all the way. Full-on villain AP. Auuughghghadsfnashdfn.... it would be GLORIOUS!

Finished Council of Thieves in about 7 months. The players had fun, despite a few bumps along the way.

Got two books into Kingmaker before shelving it. Will probably return to it, as we had few complaints. We just got distracted and never finished.

We're working on Skull & Shackles now and enjoying it immensely (on book 2).

Mad James Read

Up-and-coming elf pirate (sorcerer, unknown aquatic bloodline that manifests visibly only in his subtly alien demeanor and slightly large eyes) with an unpredictable nature and a tendency towards evil. He's ruthless and manipulative, and prone to telling bald-faced lies about his past if it will help him build trust with others. He has few loyalties, and turns to violence when it suits him to do so.

He's slim and physically frail, and rarely uses weapons or wears any kind of armor. He struggles with physical labor on-board the ship, but has recently managed to attain the status of first-mate and thus escape from almost any work that doesn't involve manipulating the captain and giving orders. He's been press-ganged into the pirating life against his will, but has found that his affinity to water and lack of empathy make him well-suited to survival on the seas.

He's most likely dirty and weather-beaten, like the rest of his crew. He's fragile but confident in his ability to solve problems and turn people (and circumstances) in his favor when necessary.

Eyes: Gray
6'0" and only 130 lbs
Hair: Blonde, almost white
Scar: He has an intimidating scar that crosses over his left eye from brow to cheek, which resulted from a spiked grate dropping on his head, nearly killing him.

STR 8; DEX 15; CON 10; INT 14; WIS 10; CHA 17

Equipment: Magic silver amulet, assorted potions, hooded lantern, and a rarely-used knife. Otherwise, wears typical pirate garb.

Please let me know if you have any more questions. Love all the art in this forum, and I'm sure my player would be ecstatic if someone illustrated his character for him. (We're on book 1 of Skull & Shackles, just about to move on to book 2)


Wow cut into the party's rewards because you made a tactical mistake? I would never do this.

What actual harm comes if you let them have the xp? You're hung up on the principle that challenge and reward have to be equivalent. If you're going to arbitrarily change xp values based on how hard you think they're trying/how well they're doing, why not just use the freeform experience variant Paizo suggests and not play games with the numbers along the way, potentially bugging your players?

Just need to save the pennies right now. Gonna wait and buy them all later. Thanks.

Alright will do. Thanks Cos.

The shipping estimate on this order is 5-8 business days and it's been three full weeks and still nothing. I'm just wondering how I should proceed. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.

A Man In Black wrote:

If this level of playtesting diligence is what I can expect from the APG, why should I give Paizo my money the next time a supplement full of game options comes along?

Hate me for saying this, but you need to chill. This is a complex game and it bears mentioning that the Gamemastery Guide and Core Rulebook repeatedly advise GMs to adjust rules where necessary. This isn't chess and it isn't brain surgery. You're insisting on being rigid and complaining that the game doesn't hold up to your level of rigidity. If you don't like the feat don't use it. If you don't like the book, then the answer to your question is, don't spend your money next time. At the very least you could ease your tone on here a bit. They're not out of line for asking you to do so. You're being a diva.

If anything it's too tough, not too easy. Even an ideal character is gonna blow a turn occasionally.

It's hokum. It told me I write like Isaac Asimov, so I pasted in a big block of Isaac Asimov text and it returned Arthur C. Clarke.

I like how the antipaladin in the picture is wielding Frostmourne. No like... really.


Ustalav is probably my favorite location in Golarion. I love gothic horror and have been aching for more of it since the last time I ran Ravenloft. I've been wanting to whip up my own campaign there because I suspected, what with the Worldwound and all, that it wasn't at the top of the list of locations to get focused on. You made my night James. =D

I house-ruled back at PF's release that undead and constructs get a +4 to AC on rolls to confirm crits. I suppose fortification is probably a more elegant way to handle it. I had forgotten the game already included a crit-resistance type of mechanic and I might use that instead.

At any rate, I agree with the OP that it still feels like there should be some kind of compromise. I feel like 3.5 was too far one way and PF is a little too far the other.

In the end it's a minor issue, and I see where Abe is coming from too. These types of monsters do have mechanics to make them tougher to hurt than normal humans already, but imo it seems like some type of crit resistance would fit the flavor of undead and constructs, since one of their defining qualities is a lack of conventional weak points. A golem or zombie with an arrow through its chest/head isn't going to mind as much as that human whose heart/brain/achilles tendon/etc gets nailed, bringing him down immediately.

I could understand houseruling it and I could also understand just leaving it as-is for simplicity's sake. It'd be interesting to see if the designers had toyed around with fortification or something similar before they arrived where they did.

Yurrrf.... urfff.... blegh. I mean, yeah. Ahem.

Apologies. Very pretty indeed!

Much much appreciated, sir.


It took me nearly a month to find out, as I've been going primarily off of my PDF of the book, but my copy of The Varnhold Vanishing is missing something close to 14 pages (as pointed out by my friend who wanted to read part 3 of the fiction bit only to find that it wasn't there). Would it perhaps be possible to get a fixed copy stuck in with the next subscription shipment? And purely out of curiosity, has anyone else had the same issue? We had a chuckle after scratching our heads for a while.

Thanks for your time. Customer service aint always pretty I know. Keep up the good work.

- Josh

Name: Gyorg Snowcrest
Race: Dwarf
Classes/levels: Cleric (5) of Abadar
Adventure: What Lies in Dust
Location: Delvehaven, Cellar Level
Catalyst: Haunted skeleton of Donatalus Bisby.
The Gory Details: (optional) Gyorg lit a corpse candle, triggering the haunted spirit. He rolled a nat 3 on his will save, followed by a nat 7 + 7 = 14, just failing his fortitude save. The three remaining members proceeded to the lower levels, using a scroll of sunburst to incinerate Jair before claiming the Morrowfall, even while down a member. They were just too angry to leave empty handed.

The party invested 2000gp in an elaborate funeral for the dwarf, generating enough publicity for an extra fame point. A hellknight, inspired by the memorial service, cast aside his helm and resigned from the order. Also, I chose the end of the funeral as a beautifully brutal time to trigger the events of book 4. =)

Stealth allows you to avoid detection, hopefully resulting in a situation where you are aware of the target, but the target is unaware of you. If you succeed on stealth, you can gain the benefit of a surprise round, in which you can potentially attack the person flat-footed (since they have not yet acted) for sneak attack damage. At least, this is my understanding. I'm not sure why this becomes so controversial, maybe because WoW players are picturing a middle-of-combat *poof*, virtual invisibility, and then an ambush, which makes little sense and is not how stealth works in DnD. Once your surprise is spent and the target knows you're there, you have finished stealthing and begun fighting.

Whether the target sees you running towards them is irrelevant for determining whether you can sneak attack, and that's why the rules don't address it. If you attack the target before the target is able to act, you have effectively caught them off-guard (flat-footed) and get to deal your sneak damage. Stealth just helps you get the jump on your opponent (surprise round) at the start of combat.

0gre wrote:

So some other odd effects of sneak attack from sniping/ spring attack.

The fighter gets sniped from over in the bushes. "I ready an action to shoot anyone who sticks their head up over there."

The rogue is clearly visible when he pops out to snipe, does the fighter get to shoot him or is he still under stealth?

Personally, I'd give the fighter who readied an action a perception roll when the sniper pops. If he makes it, he gets to take his readied shot (otherwise he didn't spot the target in time and so missed his chance to shoot).

After the rogue takes his shot, if he wasn't spotted and wants to try to stay stealthed another round, I'd say let him have a try at -20 as usual to poof back behind cover. If he pulls it off (extremely unlikely), there could be any number of explanations as to why. Maybe he popped just as the fighter blinked or glanced down, or moved with the swaying shrub-leaves as a breeze blew by.... who knows. It's not like it's gonna happen that often.

These are just my ideas for handling it. I know you're mostly concerned with the written rules though. I agree with you that stealth isn't and shouldn't be a middle-of-combat thing. I think it's intended to allow you to get the jump at the start of a fight by getting you a surprise round, or to get up close before you are noticed. In 99% of cases, I'd say once you're spotted there's no re-hiding. They know you're there. It's not about subtlety anymore.

Just my two copper pieces.

Agree with Mage. Their fluff description for Intimidate makes it sound sort of like it affects multiple targets but I don't think that was ever their intent. I came across this a few weeks ago myself and came to the conclusion that the point of dazz is that it lets you intimidate everyone at once.

0gre wrote:

Any spell you actively direct onto an enemy -> Flaming sphere, grasping hand, call lightning, spiritual weapon, telekinesis, etc is an attack.

Summons spells... The creature is attacking, your magic goes into summoning...

One point worth considering. See PF #25 (Bastards of Erebus), page 46:

Adventure path spoiler:
"While invisible, Palaveen casts spiritual weapon and directs it to attack a lightly armored character."
Had I not read this I would have considered spiritual weap a nono for invis, but I guess it is lumped with other summoning spells. Still doesn't clarify much about flaming sphere, but seemed worth mentioning.

Aand James beat me to it. Problem solved I spose =)

The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

I was looking through the bestiary and I read something in the back of the book that surprised me:


Orc Subtype: This subtype is applied to orcs and creatures related to orcs, such as half-orcs. Creatures with the orc subtype have darkvision 60 feet and light sensitivity.

So, does this mean that half-orc player characters are supposed to have the light sensitivity quality?

Has anyone been playing the race that way?

Is this in some errata that I haven't read?

I originally thought it would not apply to PCs because it wasn't specifically mentioned in the half-orc description within the PF core rulebook. However, I am reconsidering after reading this explicit statement:


Orc BloodHalf-orcs count as both humans and orcs for any effect related to race.
Any thoughts?

As far as that last quote goes, I believe Orc Blood, like Elf Blood, is for spells/items/abilities that affect certain races, like an orc bane longsword, favored enemy: orc, or the like. I don't think it's referring to anything beyond that sort of thing. As for the light-sensitivity being mentioned in the Bestiary and not the races chapter, I don't know. I would assume the core book is right in this case when it omits it. Maybe the orc subtype doesn't apply to all half-orcs, it's just listing its common uses. It might depend on how "half" the orc really is, what race it is mixed with, etc. Ultimately, I'd say go with your preference or leave it off entirely. I'm pretty sure it would be in the races chapter if it were intended to apply to players.

Srs passive aggression in this thread. People should take it easy.

I'm not bothered by barbarians the way they are now. From a combat-centric outlook, I agree with the folks who say that fighters probably have more potential. Still, it's a role-playing game. It's about flavor and story as much as anything (at least to some people), and I don't think the gulf between the class power levels is even as large (or significant) as people make it seem. You can make a solid and functional barbarian at any level, and if it fits your playstyle and character concept I don't think it should stop you from playing one in any circumstances. Don't forget choosing a class also means differences in skill selection and the fact that, well, biting your enemies is hilariously cool. Frankly, if my roleplaying group started getting this concerned over numbers I would tell them to rethink why they're playing the game. Maybe my reasons for playing are different, but I think the strengths of the game go far beyond everyone being able to dish out the same dmg (in fact, that sort of environment sucks), and having classes exist with reasonable differences is a good thing.

He's up in my 'bid-ness'..... which is ebonics for 'being in my face and annoying the bajeezus out of me.' - Michael Scott, The Office

That is a fine looking mini. Tell the sculptor good job. Yeesh.

Ok. If it boils down to a question of anatomy then I'd probably lean towards not keeping the attack for the same reasons you named. And from a rules standpoint it's just not very specific one way or the other.

I'm probably going to drop it honestly. I can't justify it regenerating anything without having flesh. Thanks for the insight mdt =)

I'm building a manticore skeleton. The skeleton entry says the creature retains all natural attacks except those that can't work without flesh. Also says under special qualities that the creature retains any extraordinary special qualities that improve ranged or melee attacks. My question is whether the manticore keeps its Spikes (Ex) special ability. Seems like it probably would, but wanted to see what you guys think.

Bestiary pages 199 (manticore) and 250 (skeleton) if you decide to flip to it.