Yes to new edicts, sort of to new terrain improvements, in that there are new "natural advantages" that you can discover for your settlement sites, as well as new settlement types like cavern cities and underwater cities that are related to different elements of terrain improvements. Lots of new stuff for settlements, including new buildings, population rules, settlement characteristics, and more.
Thanks for the quick reply. I'm adapting the content while modifying someone's spreadsheet, and was looking for interesting content to add, that doesn't necessarily add much to the system. I like the idea of level's of improvement, and want to sprinkle my map with some natural resources, landmarks, and perhaps a specific world location, like an "Old Faithful," "Mount Doom," or "Niagra Falls" type of thing.
For instance, I like the idea of upgrading farms. So, first farm, then Apiary, or Estate, or some other choice as a second level, but then, from those choices, a third level... like from Estate, a Distillery/Winery, or Noble Villa.
Anyhow, thanks for the system! And the expanded content.
I need your help for staging the fight of my party against Stisshak (the will-o-wisp, encounter N) especially on how to utilise hit-and-run tactics in conjunction with its Natural Invisibility (Ex) ability.
Since it refers to the spell invisibility, I assume it becomes visible on attacking a PC, correct?
Y'know - I never really thought about it before. My wisps have always just been able to disappear, they just preferred being all glowy and scary. But I guess it makes sense that they can't shock you if they aren't glowing, so they light up when they "break invisibility" by attacking. Then they can re-extinguish, and take a 5' step in any direction (including straight up).
So that would probably be Stsshak's tactic - each round it would choose between:
1) Shock (becoming visible if previously invisible), become invisible, 5' step into a new square.
2) Become invisible, move. (no attack)
It should move each turn while invisible, either as a move action or as a 5' step.
On another note, my party was overleveled and overpowered for Hargulka, so I gave him a class-leveled wisp as an "Advisor"... The wisp had 2 or 3 summoner(synthesist) levels, and created a body for itself as a summon - I described it as a glowing rune appearing mid-air, and then arcing blue light flaring out to outline a humanoid shape. It really confused my players.
I don't think that the party should be able to fly by the time they see this encounter... so keeping the wisp off the ground is essentially the best tactic. Starts invisible, attacks, next turn, attacks, and then goes invisible. If the group manages to hit it (which is pretty hard to do) then they are still only able to use missile weapons. My group got lucky with a cascading critical hit in my game. Otherwise, the wisp would have run them off... they got REALLY lucky.
I'm converting some things for my home Greyhawk Campaign and play Pathfider rules with Greyhawk gods. I'm looking for advice about the closest god to Erastil.
It makes the armor a reasonable choice, in 3.x it was considered to be inferior to light or heavy armor for just about any build, since being proficient with heavier armor is supposed to be beneficial heavy and medium armor has been upgraded a bit, to reflect the cost in feats or benefits of clas features better.
Thanks, have you noticed any issues in balance with this change?
Max damage is at 200' which is terminal velocity (40d12). So a fall from 200' and 2 miles is the same damage roll.
An acrobatics check will reduce the fall by 10' which can drop the dice down as well.
I'm using this and the players like it. It is a bit high at the max fall though. I may revise the dice intervals to 40' and so you would get up to 40' - d6s, up to 80' - d8s, up to 120' - d10s, up to 160' - d12s, and finally max at up to 200' with 2d8s.
Anyone else want to weigh in on this? Has anyone tried anything like this?
Giving higher level characters more of a bonus to the roll is the point of the idea. This would be at least partially mitigated by the fact they get a penalty equal to their negative hit points. At increasing levels, this penalty is likely to grow as they take more damage on average.
You would still die at negative constitution, and the rules for massive damage would still be in effect, so I don't think it would be terribly unbalancing. It would just give characters who are bleeding out but not dead a better chance of stabilizing at higher levels.
Thoughts?
If you want higher level characters a better chance to stabilize, the this method is fine. I employ a different rule however. Here is the section from my house rules. This is a conglomeration of my old system using the D% roll and 4th Ed. dying rules.
Dying. A creature who drops below -1 HP is considered to be both Unconscious and Dying. A character can drop to -10, minus their positive Constitution modifier before dying. A negative Con mod likewise changes the point of dying to -9 or even less!
At the end of a round in which a creature’s HP has dropped to a negative total, the character will roll a D% to stabilize. The character is considered injured and "bleeding."
The character will stabilize if they roll the CON score or lower on the roll. From that number to 50%, the character will still lose -1 HP, but will not improve or worsen with regards to bleeding out. On a % roll of 51-100, the character will lose -1 HP. If this does not kill the character, the character can continue to roll each round. If the character "bleeds" three rounds before stabilizing, the character dies. To be clear, immediately on the third fail, the character dies. Any free action attempts (cures) to save the character must come before the third failing roll.
For example, Bash the Fighter has a CON score of 12 and MAX 19 HP. Unfortunately, Bash fell down a large pit trap earlier in the day and currently only has 7 HP. After being hit by a kobold arrow, Bash drops 4 more points to 3 HP and then receives an Acid Orb spell which does 7 HP damage. Bash drops to -4 and is now dying. At the end of the round, bash rolls D% to stabilize. On a roll of 1-12, Bash would stabilize and not lose HP. Bash would also stabilize if he were subject to a Heal skill attempt, or any magical healing. Bash rolls and get a 62. He drops to -5 and has failed once. The following round, Bash again attempts to stabilize, and rolls a 45. He still loses a HP but has only failed bleeding out once. On the third round, Bash rolls a 88 and drops to -7. He has now failed twice and is grave danger of bleeding out. This could be the party's last chance to help Bash. If, by the end of the next round, he has not been healed, Bash will have to roll to stabilize again. If he rolls 51-100 he will die instantly.
As I learn the differences in the rules I find that I like most of the changes. Others make less sense.
There are probably design reasons why they won't allow Power Attack to "stack" with touch attacks. The primary reason this was an issue in the 3.5 rules was that it allowed for MAX Power Attacking when your weapon could bypass Armor with a spell or effect.
But then, if Power Attack doesn't work with Touch Attacks, then Strength really shouldn't either. Think about it, if touch only has to do with your Dex (or should it be Int) then Strength should never figure into attacks that can touch.
I am very familiar with the 3.5 rules but have a couple of questions.
1) Power Attack. This is an all or nothing "bonus" (meaning that later, you must take the bigger -/+) that works on all attacks during the round, including AoO's during the round, correct?
1A) When calculating the damage bonus when using a weapon with two hands, a -1 to attack gives a +3 to damage, correct?
1B) When calculating the damage bonus with an off-hand weapon, a -1 to attack gives a +1 to damage, correct?
1C) Is this damage multiplied on Crits? (i.e., is this precision based damage?)
1D) I see that this does not work with touch attacks, what is the reasoning behind this? I like this but want to understand the reasoning.
1E) What feats build off of Power Attack in Pathfinder?
2) Bluff - Will Bluff allow you to influence the action (however minor) of the target? Or is this solely for lying (meaning attitude will not change with a Bluff)?
Thanks,
I'm sure I will have a dozen more in the weeks to come...
My question is this, why is it a higher attack bonus with flurry? Shouldn't it be lower?
Starting with level 9 a monk's highest flurry attack bonus (using his level as BAB) becomes higher than his normal attack bonus (using the 3/4 BAB progression). So that's working as intended.
Lol. Look at pf's monk. That's 3.5 you're talking about.
During flurry BAB is equal to level. Then you 2 weapon fight with the -2 penaltys.
Flurry just became "free 2 weapon fighting feat-tree at full BAB" which is also why you can't stack twf and flurry any more.
Also you can never get str+1/2 using a 2handed weapon in a flurry. It sucks, but you can only get str mod. But I think you can get the 2 handed damage benefit from power attack
Ok, so what would a 1st level PF Monk plus a 15th Level PF Fighter FoB be assuming a 10 Str?
A monk level 11 has the following attacks on a flurry:
+9/+9/+4/+4/–1
Adding in Psychic warrior (+3) and str (+5) it becomes:
+17/+17/+12/+12/+7
The Glaive is just another +3 to those scores.
I don't know the feats in question, but it seems like a rather potent choice. You attack score is definately high enough for you to take power attack and bump your damage significantly.
Ok, this is correct, and if I add the Reckless trait, the attacks are +16/+16/+11/+11/+6. So, if I add +3 for the glaive enhancement, the attacks become +19/+19/+14/+14/+9. Correct?
The regular glaive attacks (with the Reckless) are +18/+13/+8.
My question is this, why is it a higher attack bonus with flurry? Shouldn't it be lower? Do you really add in the BAB from the Psychic Warrior into the mix?
If you do add the +3 from the PsyWar, do you move up the Monk chart and use the flurry scores for a monk who is higher level? In this case, the flurry of a 15th level monk. This doesn't seem correct either...
And yes, the Power Attack does make for an effective character, but at this level, he needs it compared to some of the other fighter classes.
With a BAB +11/+6/+1, str +5, and a weapon +3 it becomes:
+19/+14/+9
Ahh... I missed something in the original post. This character also has a character trait called Reckless (I think from the Unearthe Arcana) which is -1 on all attacks for a trade of +1 damage to all attacks.
I'm trying to figure out a Monk's flurry bonuses and I'm not sure if I understand the rules correctly. Can someone help with the bonus and explain to me what I'm doing?
I have an 11th Pathfinder Monk, 5th 3.5 Psychic Warrior (BAB +3).
I have a Monk's Belt, which means that I look on the chart 5 levels higher for AC and unarmed strike damage...
I have allowed a feat (actually chain of two feats) that allows this character to flurry with a glaive.
The glaive is +3 enhanced.
The character is Strength 20. Wisdom is 26 if that matters but I don't think it does.
EDIT: The character has a trait (from Unearthed Arcana) called Reckless which gives him a -1 to attacks for a trade of +1 to damage.
I want to figure the unarmed flurry first, then the glaive should just be an additional +3 to hit (and use it's own damage).
Thanks!!! I think I understand this, but then the extra attack in the Flurry going from monk 10 to 11 just through me off...
I have the regular glaive attacks at +18/+13/+8. I think that is correct, I have the flurry attacks too high I believe...
Can someone please give a few examples of how this works?
I've been playing 3.5 for a bit... and have been looking at the new books (GREAT ART!). After scanning them for the little things... both of these things, especially Power Attack... seem wonky. Clearly Furious Focus was not meant to transfer directly to 3.5... you must make use of the PF Power Attack, right?
First, Area 7. ** spoiler omitted **
Thanks, I run this encounter tomorrow!!!
Sean
Well, I made the half-moon walls surounding the center dias 5' above the coins, same as I figured the door levels and dias were. Made for an interesting terrain feature.
Spoiler:
Three characters immediately realized (after fair warning that their comments would be held against them) that the room was one of the runes....
I had the expeditionary move down the shaft from the upper levels while the constest with the dragon began. Since we are running this as a one-shot, I used the pregens, plus Harsk (awesome character). The dragon waged unholy war on the group, with Seoni the socerer blasting with multiple Scorching Rays. Since I leveled the characters at the base of the pyramid, this allowed Seoni two rays!! Regardless, I was able to breathe three times, and brought down 6 characters in the encounter, one who bled to death (Merisiel), as well as the Expeditionary members Hrosk (spelling?), and Scepter; both turned to ash!!! I used the timing to join the groups, the Paracount gaining advantage (and all treasure from the center) buy using a scroll of Raise Dead (Asmodeous), on Merisiel. Afterwards, the player running Harsk, who constantly runs his dwarven mouth (like a good dwarf!) started to complain about the arrangement... When Julistar told the other memebers to call of their "dog" Harsk had enough and opened fire on the two remaining Expeditionary members... which was the perfect time to reveal that Neferet was NOT on their side.
If you look at the symbol which makes up the room, how tall are each of the half moon wall? portions of the symbol (inside the outer circle of the room)? The room is supposed to be 50 feet tall. Are the walls that high. I would think not if you could fly and have the DC 10 spot check to notice that it is one of the symbols...
Also, how tall is the central platform? I guessed it was just higher than the coins, but I'm not sure.
This apparently means that the Paizo/Greyhawk love affair is over. I've always been setting neutral, so this doesn't bother me too much, but I have to believe that there are folks at Paizo, and certainly folks on these boards who will be pretty upset over that alone.
I can't speak for my cohorts, but my love affair with Greyhawk predates my professional gaming career by more than a decade, and will continue until they put me in a casket. James, Jason, and I just co-wrote "Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk" for WotC, which will be releasing in August.
I am on record at WotC as being extremely interested in a Greyhawk license or licensing opportunities related to that property. So we'll see what happens.
--Erik
GREYHAWK!!! Ouch... this is what hurts the most. Dungeon and Dragon have been my secret outlets for new Greyhawk material for years... I am going to miss it, a lot. I'm sure the new Pathfinder will be great, certainly the talent (i.e., the writers, artists, etc.) is, but I am pained at the thought of not having anymore Greyhawk. I don't think the folks at WotC do enough there.
I would do nearly anything to see more of the quality Greyhawk material that I've seen in the last few years!!! PLEASE PURSUE THE LICENSE!
Just that glimmer of hope will keep me going...
I grew up with these magazines... I started collecting in the low 80's and absolutely revere these mags... I've even dumped two very stunning women over this game, and a Dragon mag argument (she wanted me to get rid of my collection!) was one of those!
