Sehnder's page

Hey folks. If a creature has, say, 6 tentacles each with the GRAB ability, can it grapple multiple enemies at a time? Players are going to face the following beasty:

https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/bestiary/monster-listings/aberr ations/abyssal-harvester-tohc

Does that mean it could grab three players at once and constrict them? Can it maintain a grapple with all of them or just one? My understanding is that basically this creature is just going to beat at them with its tentacles if it can only grapple one creature at a time and it is fighting multiple foes by itself. Thanks!

Hey folks.I am putting some of my GM games (and GM boon) to use and thought that the above combo would be pretty fun/effective. Wanted to get your thoughts on what an effective build would be combining these two. I know Zen Archer alone is pretty formidable, so I'm not sure on how best to combine the two. Thanks in advance for any help!

Just a few quick thoughts off the top of my head...

*Find out what she wants. Is she looking for hack and slash? Roleplay? Does she have a character background/role in mind? Tailor the experience to what she is looking for. Maybe ask what interested her in learning and use that as a base.

*Allow organic play, and teach as you go. Give a very cursory overview of her character (you can smash things, you know engineering, and you have keen eyesight) and then teach her when things come up. When she wants to move, show here where the move speed is on her sheet. When she wants to attack, show her her attack options and bonuses. If she wants to look for stuff, show her where her perception skill is. For beginners, I find letting them DO stuff with their character is more important than understanding where all of it comes from.

*Friendly environment. No dumb questions, there is no "messing up" no matter what she does.

*Don't quash things outright with "you don't want to do that/that isn't optimal" if you can avoid it. Having her rogue take a few hits because she snuck ahead teaches a much better lesson than telling her "No! Never split the party!". It is always fun to see new players go about the game before the reality of 'optimized play' sets in.

Be nice, have fun!

Hey folks. Probably a simple question with a "no" answer, but would like to get your thoughts.

In PFS one of my alchemist's trademarks has been putting defeat enemies into barrels and chucking them at the next batch of opponents. Not an effective strategy I admit, but a lot of fun for everyone at the table. However, tonight a GM called to my attention that a barbarian rage power and a full round action is required to toss anything as large as barrel.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/rage-powers/paizo--- rage-powers/hurling-lesser-ex

So my simple question is- is there a way to chuck barrels at people without dipping into barbarian? My alchemist build already has me going into monk/fighter, and I can't afford any further detours. It is obviously just a fun stylistic thing, but if there is some item or spell that would let me retain this it would be fun. Otherwise I might just have to settle for dropping barrels on people once I get access to fly. Thanks for your thoughts!

I think there are generally three ways you can add "cinema" to your combats.

Cinematic Background: "You are fighting a pit fiend while on a magic carpet tearing out of the streets of Absalom."

Cinematic Descriptions: Describe what you just did flavor-wise after the result. "My critical hit shears off both of the ettins' heads in a single swipe."

Cinematic Actions: "I slide on the ground towards the wizard, going under the legs of the hill giant, and as I come close I try to smash the wizard's ring."

Cinematic backgrounds work in pathfinder, and any game really. You just make the situation interesting and go with it. Battling on a melting glacier or sinking ship is cool, and you don't even need to add any combat modifiers if you don't want to.

Cinematic descriptions are likewise possible by anyone. When I GM pathfinder this is as simple as asking "describe what you just did". From there our monk can describe how he finished the ogre with an uppercut or our barbarian can describe how he ripped out the lizardman's throat with his teeth. You can even allow for inconsequential game impacts. For example, that the killing blow on the boss monster knocks him through a stone wall or that he gets lits on fire by a nearby torch.

Cinematic actions aren't gonna happen in Pathfinder if you play by the book. If people are playing optimally, they will almost never do anything exciting or original in a pure combat situation. The opportunity cost of a missed full round attack/haste is too high, the benefit of trying something clever too low. You will need to do significant house ruling to make it worthwhile, and even then people will only do it if they are willing to sacrifice effectiveness for cinema (which is hard to do when most combats end in 1-2 rounds- your cinematic move might be your only action). You will need house rules to make it worthwhile.

The easiest house rule is to simply let the player describe what they want to do, consider how likely it is to succeed and what the impact is, and ask for a d20 roll.

"I want to hit the wizard in the junk with this potato to make him drop his staff."

"Roll a d20. If it is a 16 or higher I'll give it to you and he drops his staff."

"*Roll* Nuts! No pun intended. I only got a 15."

"The wizard grimaces in pain as your potato connects, and he looks like he is about to collapse. Thankfully the staff he has securely in hand steadies him and he doesn't fall."

Other than that, you are looking at house rules to overhaul the game. Rocket tag is not conducive to cinematic combat.

Sounds pretty nasty though. Is it a punishment for ending the adventure badly?

As a result of a FPS scenario, I am now living with a very real problem related to the confused condition. Minor chronicle sheet spoiler with details.

So net net, I know my character is going to get confused for many rounds at a time. I have been looking around to see if there is any means of preventing confusion or eliminating it when it occurs, but so far I have not been able to find anything. I'm hoping I'm missing something, because otherwise I feel like my character is a walking time bomb to cause a TPK (either by attacking others or being useless). Thanks for any help!

Thanks for the clarification, saw conflicting things on temporary bonuses but this definitely makes sense.

The bonus spells for alchemists read as follows:

"An alchemist can create only a certain number of extracts of each level per day. His base daily allotment of extracts is given on Table: Alchemist. In addition, he receives bonus extracts per day if he has a high Intelligence score, in the same way a wizard receives bonus spells per day."

The main nuance for an alchemist is the he frontloads his casting by creating extracts. The key term here is CREATE. That means unlike most casters, an alchemist only really needs his casting stat at the start of the day (or if he is mixing up a new brew later) for spells per day purposes.

With all that in mind, wouldn't this mean that an alchemist could do the following?:

Fox's Cunning
Create Extracts
Fox's Cunning Fade
Enjoy Extra Extracts

To use a simple example, my 14 intelligence alchemist only gets two extra extracts per day (one level 1, one level 2). By buffing at the start of the day, I would be able create two additional extracts (one level 3, one level 4). In my mind what this means is that if an alchemist plans to create all his extracts up front, there is no reason for him not to buff before doing so in order to maximize his number of extracts. Am I missing something here, or is that actually how it works?

This is one of the big problems inherent with a binary save/fail system. Chance is inherent in the game, but the swing of having your mage roll a 17 on his fort save and being turned to stone vs. rolling an 18 and being fine is pretty dramatic. This also makes it hard to answer the question of how often you should make a save- if failure means you are out of the game, the answer OUGHT to be most of the time. In contrast, if it is the difference between a couple points of ability damage or a negative level, failing isn't quite so terrible.

No way of fixing it outside of house rules unfortunately. But I dream of a system where failing a dominate spell save by one point gives a different result than completely flubbing it.

I was thinking of trying something a little bit different for my next PFS character, and thought that a combination monk alchemist may be fun. Conceptwise the idea would be to be a frontline brawler who can supplement his abilities with some alchemy for big fights.

Ragechemist 4- Disocovery: Feral Mutagen
Monk 8- Not sure on what compliments the theme well.

Stats:
Str: 15
Dex: 14
Int: 12
Wis: 14
Con: 14
Cha: 7

My first question is whether or not this character concept is even viable or if it would be horrendously ineffective (the stats are spread pretty thin as you can tell). Second question would be what a good monk compliment would be to the ragechemist. It seems like overall the ragechemist should only go up to level 2 for rage mutagen or level 4 for feral mutagen, and I am having trouble deciding on what the best use of the other 8-10 levels is. Thanks for any insights!

Given the amount of indoor fights (in annoying 5ft-corridor dungeons) I don't think a horse is the solution.

Technically, a horse takes up only two squares so it can happily prance through five foot corridors. It is also only 5-6 feet tall, so even doorways aren't ACTUALLY a problem. The main challenge though is that the "does your horse fit" discussion has to happen with each GM.

Even in a worst case scenario where your GM rules the horse is squeezing, it still moves faster than you and can double move while giving you a standard action.

My paladin has UMD and makes liberal use of a wand of expeditious retreat. I am also going to take a two level dip into Hellknight which lets me move at 30 base, even in full plate.

I also recommend getting a horse when you reach level 5- even if you don't plan to be mount focused. The horse can sprint you up to combat and then you can have it provide flanking or just hang back. In my mind getting to the fray five turns earlier is well worth missing out on a +1/+1 on your weapon.

Had a player reroll a ninja and just wanted to makes sure I'm not missing something here.

Essentially with vanishing trick, a ninja in melee on his turn can do the following:

Swift-Vanish
Full Round- First Attack Sneak, Vanish Removed, Remaining normal attacks

And when the ninja gets invisible blades:

Swift- Vanish
Full Round- All sneak attacks, remains invisible.

From a GM perspective it seems once he hits level 10 everything gets obliterated unless they happen to have detect invisibility up. Accurate or inaccurate?

Didn't check the spoilers, but remember that adventure paths are made to be broken. Feel free to be creative in getting them to avoid the situation, deal with it, or escape from it.

Just a few off the top of my head...

1. The party encounters a higher level group that got demolished by the vampire and warns them they aren't strong enough.

2. A vampire hunter warns them that the vampire is too strong for them. If they insist on proceeding, he makes a heroic sacrifice to let the party escape. Does he live or does he die? You decide!

3. Something else distracts the vampire after he has had his way decimating the party. You can foreshadow whatever this is ahead of time so it doesn't come out of nowhere.

4. Spread a rumor that he is a special vampire that can only be made vulnerable if X happens. Have X be in an appropriate level area.

5. Let them fight it out, but have a rushing river or something nearby. An NPC who sees the battle is lost dives in to escape and bids the PCs to follow.

6. Straight up tell the PCs "this vampire is a bad mother, and I expect one or more of you to die if you tangle with him. Still want to throw down, or do you want to prepare a bit more before you tangle?"

Provided you have the sort of team that will run when the battle is lost, fleeing a losing battle can actually be a great plot hook. Nothing makes players happier than coming back to someone who got the better of them and getting the last laugh.

I asked the same question of the venture captain in my area and his answer was that this is simply how the core game goes at higher levels. Spells get cast and you have a 25-75% chance of insta-losing.

Of course, that isn't terribly helpful to your question. I personally house rule around it.

For save vs. lose spells, I use what I call the "Degree of Failure" system. If you lose by a couple points I will give you the option of taking damage of a similar level spell (with a failed save) and a debuff. Lose by a few more and we up the damage and effect. Fumble or fail terribly and let it play out like the disaster it was.

An Example on the fly...

SAVE FAILED VS PETRIFY SPELL

Failed by 1-2: Take ?d6 damage, movement speed reduced by 10

Failed by 3-6: Take an additional 5% total life as damage for each point you fail by. Slowed until dispel magic cast.

Failed by 7+: Turned to stone.

This approach requires a lot of faith in your GM to handle ad hoc situations, but I find the players like it a lot better than the alternative. The balancing factor is that I use the same rules for boss monsters- you can polymorph the mooks if you want, but the big bad isn't defeated because he rolls a 3 on your baleful polymorph.

Choosing whether to take a full spell effect or damage helps the player retain a feeling of some control, even when they fail a saving throw. Balancing removing debuffs vs pressing on also becomes more exciting. If your wizard gets turned to stone, the choice to disple magic is pretty straight forward. But what if he is instead slowed? Does he take the time to remove the debuff or hope his allies can keep him safe? Gameplay decisions!

Thanks for the answers guys!

In any case, if I really want to move far I think technically I can still have the mount move/run using HIS movement and then just use a swift dismount when it ends its movement (and then use my own expeditious movespeed).

Unrelated aside: saddest discovery while researching how to use my mount was learning I can't give him skill focus UMD so he can use a wand. I really liked the idea of my horse running around with a wand in its mouth cure moderating everyone. Will have to settle for him tossing tanglefoot bags at people.

If I have my paladin UMD expeditious retreat on a wand, can I apply it to my paladin mount through "share spell"? My understanding is that I can redirect it to my mount, giving it a 50+30=80 base move speed. Justice is swift!

Bonus question 1: If my mount is going to die in combat, can I use http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/h/hero-s-defiance to keep my horse alive? If you can replace "you" with "horse" when using share spell, it seems like the horse would be able to trigger it.

Bonus question 2: What kind of action is used to "catch" something being dropped or thrown to a nearby ally? I am planning to use my horse as a utility animal and have helpful items like wands/potions strapped to him that allies can grab and use. I was wondering if I could have the items attached by a rope and have the horse "bite it free" while moving past allies and they could grab it (or have the horse simply toss them the item with his mouth). Basically the idea is to have the horse act as 1,500 pound saint bernard, aiding allies however he can.

Thanks in advance for the help!

I've been planning a Paladin/Hellknight combo for a while, but I'm a bit indecisive on how to finish it off. The original plan was for a Pal 10/ Hell 2, but it occurs to me that levels 9 and 10 don't give that many toys to a Paladin.

I am wondering if some sort of fighter class dip would help my overall combat ability and give my build some desperately needed feats. Or maybe two levels somewhere else to round him out more.

My character has a pretty flexible playstyle- he is happy to assist with wands, wait for the enemy to advance, or handle diplomatic matters. That said, what he lives for is those times when swift heroism is required and he can charge in, falchion in hand. In other words, being a combat beast is his preferred choice, but he happily places that aside when the team needs him in another capacity. So added combat ability is my first thought for whatever his last two levels are, but I'm willing to forgo it for awesome utility.

At present I am thinking either two levels in the two-handed fighter or unbreakable archetypes are the way to go.

Current stats are as follows:

Level 5 Aasimar Paladin
Str:18 (Used level 4 stat bonus)
Dex:13 (+1 at level 12)
Con:14
Int:12
Wis:07
Cha:17 (+1 at level 8)

Skill Focuses: Use Magic Device, Intimidate

Feats: Fey Foundling, Power Attack, Furious Focus

!Bonus Question!

Even though I am not a mount focused melee character, I am debating picking up an animal for my divine bond for utility purposes (having horse flank my enemies, rescue damsels in distress, attempt trip attacks, or run up to wounded allies so they can take one of the potions he has saddled to him).

Fun idea or terrible idea?

Thanks for your help!

Ravingdork Fallacy:

The belief that having something named after you is of more important than coming up with something WORTH naming after you.

The 13th age has an excellent rule regarding "fleeing" that I think works well here. The rule itself is focused on fleeing battle rather than just sleeping, but the same principle applies.

RULE:
[If the party has to flee or rest too much]...The party suffers a campaign loss. At the GM’s discretion, something that the party was trying to do fails in a way that going back and finishing off those enemies later won’t fix. If the heroes were on their way to rescue a captive from unholy sacrifice, then naturally enough the captive gets sacrificed. Don’t worry, overcoming setbacks is exactly what heroism is about. The point of this rule is to encourage daring attacks and to make retreating interesting on the level of story rather than tactics.

Also worth noting that chronic resting syndrome tends to be directly related to your number of casters. The group I am running is two barbarians, a fighter, and a sorcerer. Ignoring rages per day, 75% of the party is in optimal fighting shape as long as they can have the sorcerer UMD a cure wand or chug potions. If they were three casters, this definitely wouldn't be the case.

Sehnder wrote:

It isn't one of the choices you listed, but in my mind there is no better fit for Kaladin than a Paladin. And not just for the alliteration!

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Kaladin the Paladin is a rhyme, not alliteration. Unless we are in Bizarro world.

Consonance then Mr. Nitpicky.

I am running an adventure path against a somewhat customized Lamia Matriarch. She seems like she has a good chance to massacre the party if played intelligently. Just a few of the things it seems like she would do...

1. Charm Fest
My understanding is that you can cast charm without breaking invisibility. If this is the case, the Lamia can easily cast charm monster on every party member before the fight even begins. Unless you detect her she can just bide her time until everyone fails. I don't even know what she would do at that point, but it seems to me it could get nasty REALLY quick. "Let me talk to your barbarian alone for a few minutes."

2. Suggestion
The fight is on the top of a clock tower 200 feet high. As part of the fight she summons a scary illusion. She can simply suggest "that thing will kill you! the only way to escape is to jump off the building!" and it will essentially take someone out of the fight (also, 20d6 damage)

3. Invisibility + Mirror Image
We have three melee fighters and she has an AC of 25. Getting through that will take a bit.

I'm curious in particular if #1 and #2 are jerk moves on my part or expected play from a Lamia. I figure she has 16 int and Wis, so she is going to play smart. I came up with her plan of attack after only a few minutes, so I am positive she could be even more nasty if she put her mind to it. Any insights appreciated!

It isn't one of the choices you listed, but in my mind there is no better fit for Kaladin than a Paladin. And not just for the alliteration!

For perception, I have the players make 50 rolls before the game and put them in a spreadsheet. I then randomize the results and pre-plan the adventure based on the results.

So rather than everyone having to say "I PERCEIVE" for the 90th time, I just tell each individual what they see as things happen. At that point they are free to examine other items in further detail based on what they actually look at. I can give them another roll then if I think it is appropriate.

Sehnder wrote:

Worth noting that the logical arguments for these things are highly in the GM's favor when having the discussion.

Me: I don't think this trait is balanced.
Player: No! It is totally fair! It is no better than any other trait out there!
Me: Then you shouldn't have any problem with picking one of those other equally good traits then, right?
Player: Well, snap.

Correction:

"None of those other traits give what I need to have from a trait."

Your argument isn't a logical argument.

"I want this Trait that gives Linguistics as a class skill."

"I don't think that's balanced."

"It's no better than other traits though."

"Well you shouldn't have a problem picking one of them then, eh?"

"But they don't give Linguistics. They give Bluff, or Perception, or Use Magic Device."

If it doesn't work with most specific examples, it's not a logical argument.

It is perfectly logical when you consider that the baseline assumption is that I'm not having the conversation unless "I see something weird from some obscure book that is clearly better than other alternatives". +1 to one skill vs another is clearly pretty equivalent so I don't see how you consider your example a rebuttal.

An actual example would be someone wanting a trait that gives +1 to linguistic, bluff, and diplomacy and makes them all class skills. Given this is literally three time better than most other skill traits, it is an easy logical discussion that the trait may be a little strong.

My solution isn't terribly savvy, but it works. I told the players the following:

"Anything in the core rulebook is fine. Everything else I will have to look at to approve. I am not looking to be a jerk and most everything should be fine, but if I see something weird from some obscure book that is clearly better than other alternatives, we'll have to talk."

At that point, if something unbalanced comes up (like a synthesist summoner or a broken feat) we talk about it. If the only reason for choosing it is because it is clearly unfair, no dice.

Worth noting that the logical arguments for these things are highly in the GM's favor when having the discussion.

Me: I don't think this trait is balanced.
Player: No! It is totally fair! It is no better than any other trait out there!
Me: Then you shouldn't have any problem with picking one of those other equally good traits then, right?
Player: Well, snap.

Based on the OP's attitude, this just seems like childish venting and not asking a legitimate question. "Killing LG paladin doucebags isn't evil! Screw you Joshua!" Ok then buddy.

To address the point for those actually interested in the discussion, a paradigm I use for looking at alignment issues.

SACRIFICE:
Good: Makes sacrifices for others.
Neutral: Does not make sacrifices for others, does not sacrifice others.
Evil: Sacrifices others for themselves.

NEIGHBOR:
Good: You would want to have them as a neighbor, or at least not be worried by them being your neighbor.
Neutral: You wouldn't care if they were your neighbor.
Evil: You would not want them as a neighbor.

THE NEWS:
Good: If I saw this person on the news I would sympathize with their actions.
Neutral: If I saw this person on the news, I wouldn't agree with their actions but I would understand them.
Evil: if I saw this person on the news, I would think they are a monster.

It isn't a perfect system, but it puts a good deal of "realism" behind what someone is doing. In this case.

SACRIFICE: Evil. Sacrificed others rather than deal with the situation in some other manner

NEIGHBOR: Evil. I would not want that barbarian as a neighbor.

NEWS: Evil. If I saw that barbarian on the evening news, I would want him punished to the full extent of the law.

People seem to think that only good characters don't use murder as a first resort, but I maintain that most neutrals don't either. My paradigm is that actively hurting others for convenience or profit is the essence of evil. Neutral just wants to do its own thing, while evil is willing to do its own thing- even if it hurts others.

A lot depends on:

1. The experience level of the players.
2. How much the group likes "meta purchasing".
3. Buying the stuff actually adds to the game.

EXPERIENCE LEVEL
If the players simply don't know, then offer some instruction from some kindly NPC who has more experience.

"Back in my day we always used to carry a few scrolls of identify in case we found any good loot during our journeys."

"Careful out there, if you don't have magic weapons I reckon you'll need some magic oils? What's an oil, well, let me tell you..."

"Demons sure are nasty. Always carried a potion of protection from evil when I was an adventurers. Makes it hard for the beasties to touch you, and you can't get mind controller neither!"

If they don't heed the advice, make a punishing (but survivable) scenario where the lack of foresight bites them. For example, a couple quasits quickly teach why cold iron is a good idea, and ranged enemies that can't be reached teach the same lesson for arrows. Forcing the party to retreat, regroup, and correct their errors is a good way to learn.

META-PURCHASING

Does your group actually like spending time/money going shopping? I have one player who does, the rest aren't really interested in finding out what the 13 different arrow types are or having a satchel filled with 50 different potions for every "just in case" scenario. In general they want to go out and adventure and roleplay, not spend time shopping so they have a handy haversack of overcome any forseeable problem.

This is a big one really. Making players have sufficient supplies is fine if the players like that aspect, and aren't buying stuff because they expect you won't make hard encounters if they can't handle it. Conversely, if your players just want to adventure, you are going to have a lot of consternation when the players don't buy a scroll of swift girding for their fighters in case of a night attack.

DOES IT ADD TO THE GAME

This answer is homebrewy. For me though... arrows are 1G. Ain't nobody got time for that. You have plenty of arrows, done. If I think you have too much money because you didn't spend money on arrows I will secretly deduct three gold from the next treasure hoard.

For my players, I just say "my assumption is that you have plenty of rations, and reasonable supplies. I won't award you gold for tearing up floorboards and selling the lumber, so getting all the nitpicky stuff for free is your consolation prize. What constitutes reasonable supplies is my sole discretion- if you want anything that costs more than a gold or two, buy it or ask me if you have it on hand."

I guess for me I have never gotten a whole lot of mileage over tracking every single copper piece. I do enough of that in my day job!

Four PCs, PFS stat generation. Dwarven Foehammer, human barbarian, halfling mad dog, and frost elemental bloodline sorcerer. And they are pretty much just kicking down doors and pillaging things at the moment. Any big nasty that gets close gets chopped down in a round of two.

Actually, they have a TINY bit of fear now. After the barbarian nearly murdered himself due to a suicide compulsion in foxglove manner they have been a bit more cautious in their explorations. But really, any combat situation they seem to be in no danger. The chances of the skinsaw man bringing someone down to even half is approximately 0.

I was actually going to ask if this is considered an easy adventure path compared to others. Other than a near-death with some yeth hounds,(and having to tactically regroup against Erlyium), my rise of the runelords group has been in no real danger up till now as they start the misgivings. All except one is a new player, and they are more or less steamrolling. Of course they are three melee, so might be things will start getting a lot harder in the near future.

In contrast, I just had an optimized group in PFS play the traitor's lodge and we had two deaths (including mine) in the very first encounter. No bad rolls or huge tactical errors, just sheer brutality.

I hold paladins to a VERY high standard in my group (and any good for that matter). In this case though I think there a wide variety of reasons that would justify this action on the part of the paladin.

A mental exercise I do is to look at possible extremes and see where the situation lies. In this case:

Scenario A: The child has been doing charity work for the last year and is eager to speak with his father.

Scenario B: The child has become a baby eating murderer and has slain thousands of innocents. When subdued he swears to burn down all nearby orphanages at his earliest convenience.

Scenario A, detaining the child is probably not OK. Scenario B though? Clearly this information coming to light outweighs the initial promise- I can't envision a paladin letting such a monster free even if he "promised". If you hire some commoners to build a bridge and they come across an ancient wyrm guarding the way to the site, you don't call them liars for backing off from the arrangement. The same applies here- unexpected findings can greatly influence otherwise simple matters.

This scenario here lies between the extremes as expected- were I the paladin I would play it like this:

"Sir, I promised to return your son as soon as I can. I stand by that. But until we know everything he knows then thousands of others may be in peril. I swear I will not hold your son one second longer than necessary to ensure I can keep everyone- including the two of you- safe."

Intent goes a long way in interpreting actions and how they fit with the Paladin code. Give it a read and consider how it relates to this situation.

I do not think this qualifies as an evil act based on the information provided.

Respect Authority- Not relevant based on info. provided

Act with honor- RELEVANT, honorable thing to do is to ensure you prevent greater evil (and to be forthright with the father on why you are doing what you are doing if at all possible). Breaking a promise comes into play here too. I think responsibility to honor commitments is tempered with reason based on discoveries made. The paladin inherently breaks this part of the code (and follows it) a little bit regardless of what decision he makes.

Help those in need- Provided they do not use the help for evil/chaotic ends... returning a son who may be able to help prevent evil/chaos falls under this I think.

Punish those that threaten innocent- Having to explain what you were doing seems like a pretty light punishment.

Based on all this I don't think there is a strong reason to remove powers. Really though the easiest thing to do is ask the player to explain their character's thought process and how it relates to the paladin code. "I must prevent the greater evil, even if I must delay my promise a few hours" is a stronger argument than "the wizard told me to."

Thanks for the help guys!

When a loot reward says something to the effect of "a crown worth 40GP" or "a holy symbol worth 100GP", is that the amount the PCs will sell it for or how much it is worth total? Since most of the items flagged this way don't have any alternative uses, I want to make sure I am not giving the PCs twice (or half) as much gold as I ought to. Thanks!

Thanks for the thoughts guys. Just to clear up my intention with the question, my purpose isn't to "Gotcha! You are evil!" on the players. Rather, it was to help the players (well, really just one,) recognize that their current actions are not in line with their chosen alignment.

Our "chaotic good" dwarf has shown a propensity for using lethal force for his convenience. A 14 year old commoner attacked our barbarian who had murdered his father some years ago (the barbarian has since seen the error of his pillaging and is trying to atone through his adventuring.) The barbarian attempted to disarm the boy (who attacked the entire group solo with no armor), and our dwarf responded by one-shotting the poor kid with a power attack. The player INTENT was that he wanted to get back to the dungeon and didn't want to have the barbarian talking with the youth delaying him.

It is unfortunately not a one-off thing, as said player has done this to several other surrendering foes the group wanted to question. Likewise said dwarf has no qualms about performing attacks or combat actions that might harm or kill his allies, so long as he gets to land the killing blow. I can get the message across by the paladin detecting "a darkness" within him when he uses detect evil, but I was curious if having the paladin smite him if he tries to murder his way out was mechanically sound. I might houserule it and say that smites are half strength if the target isn't the alignment but is actively acting in line with it. Obviously the crux of this issue is a player one rather than a mechanical one, which we can hopefully resolve organically through the game. But I thought I might as well get a mechanical answer for it while I have it top of mind!

12/14/2013 Questions

1. If an otherwise good or neutral character is behaving in an evil fashion, does smite evil work on them? E.G.

a. A good character controlled by a dominate spell by an evil creature.
b. A good/neutral character that is currently acting out of line with that alignment for whatever reason.

The group is about to encounter a paladin who wants to take them into custody due to the death of a teenage boy by their hands. The group knows they are guilty of the crime, although there were some minor mitigating circumstances. The paladin has them surrounded so the only way out it to fight. My take would be that even if they are not evil in alignment, attacking to kill a paladin who is rightfully trying to bring them to justice is an evil act. Under these circumstances, would smite evil work on the PC?

That is it for today!

I originally had this under advice, but since it is more a smattering of rules questions I thought this part of the forum would be more appropriate.

I haven't GMed before and most of our players can count the number of RPG sessions on one hand, so we have the blind leading the blind. If we have differing opinions my interpretation stands with only token grumbling, but I let them know I will research and report back before the next session. That is where you guys come in!

I'll simply add on replies as more questions arise- less clutter than making a new topic each week. Thanks in advance for any responses you provide!

3. I think you are correct about explosive runes. That's why they're nasty. A bit extreme for your PCs' level, isn't it?

Agreed! I used a "lesser" version that was only 3d6 so it had no chance of being fatal. The encounter was intended to be tragic (the rune was on the kid in the last question, his final shot at revenge if he failed,) not fatal. I did the math and even with max rolls on damage no one would die.

New Thursday, new questions!

1. Can a summoned monster be summoned "in the air" and attack on it's way down? Player summoned a celestial hound to attack a flying quasit. My presumption would be the thing is too disoriented to figure out what to attack in the .2 second before in plummets to the earth.

2. Are there any rules for "beating the air" out of a target? We had an enemy the group was jointly trying to drown, per the rules this takes 2xcon in rounds to start drowning. Does damage "knock the air" out of a creature?

3. Explosive runes. My understanding is that if you are reading something (in this case a note/letter)and a rune is partway down the page, you automatically detonate it. Player wanted to argue that you can "see the rune" and stop reading part way. I imagine by the time you can recognize an explosive rune you have already read it.

4. Alignment question (oh noes!) A 13 year old Lawful Good NPC ambushes our CG (or at least trying to be) barbarian because he murdered his dad years before. Barbarian makes a disarm attempt and fails, party dwarf power attacks the unlucky kid for a one hit kill. In my mind, if not an EVIL act, I would consider it at least a NON-GOOD action. The dwarf didn't know the backstory, but he did see that his target was little more than a child, untrained, and the person he was attacking was not trying to settle with lethal force. Obviously as GM I have ultimate authority on what Good is in our campaign, but wanted to get your thoughts on it.

Thanks as always for your thoughts!

Thanks everyone for the comments- very helpful in last night's session. I actually went ahead and did the loot calculations in excel and the last fight to reach level 2 awarded enough loot to be up to snuff gold-wise. I award levels at set points during the adventure rather than XP (since the AP out and says "you should be this level when you reach this point").

And since we have our game last night, I come bearing new questions!

1. We have a dwarf using a dwarven longhammer. He couldn't reach a target due to range, and said he wanted to shift his hammer to one hand and use his free hand to throw a weapon (throw a smaller hammer as an improvised weapon). He was under the impression that in doing so he could make a ranged attack without having to drop his weapon and lose a move action the next round to pick it up. I'm not sure what the proper ruling for this is- seems if nothing else you would have a minus to hit while trying to tag someone while balancing a hammer in one hand.

2. Does paladin detect evil go through walls? The players maintained you can look directly at a wall and detect if evil lurks on the other side (and pinpoint to specific figure's location if you take the time to do so). My thought was that at best you could get a vague "there is something evil in this area" if you can't actually see what you are trying to detect.

3. If you are invisible and cast summoner monster, it does not end your visibility. What kind of perception check would be made to detect where an invisible summoner is hiding at?

4. Can blood trails (from regular HP damage, not necessarily bleeding) be used to track an invisible creature?

5. Spiked gauntlets are shown as a light weapon in the equipment guide. My take on it is that since it is in the same category as other light weapons (light mace, cestus, etc) it is incompatible with holding another weapon in that hand. One of our players insists that it is no different from using a regular gauntlet which does not interfere with using that hand. My thought process everyone in the game world would use a spiked gauntlet if it worked that way, since it gives every character and undisarmable armed attack for absolutely no cost. That doesn't make any sense so I have to imagine it doesn't work that way, or that it at least interferes with other glove/gauntlet slot items.

6. If an enemy/ally is partially in the way of a reach attack, does that give penalties to the attack? I would assume if he is right in front of you you can't reach over to attack, but if he is slightly in the way does that result in partial cover?

Thanks as always for the help!

Thanks for the thoughts guys.

ROUND TWO OF QUESTIONS:

My understanding of reach is that in threatens squares as shown in the following image.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w170/JaeganX/Threaten_zps079be0d5.png

If that understanding is correct, it means that there is no way for a five foot range combatant to get into striking distance without getting an attack on them (which is basically the point of reach). If this is the case, I would take that to mean encounters have to be designed in such a way where the PCs must be the aggressor (no waiting for the enemy to charge in and get AOO on them). One of the PCs has a reach weapon and combat reflexes, and at level 1 all of my melee monsters get splatted before they get within spitting distance.

On the same token, are there any considerations I should take for a heavy melee focused group at low levels? We have two barbarians, one fighter, and a wizard. Right now (level 1) anything with fewer than 3HD basically dies if a hit connects (2d6+6 [two hander strength]+3 [power attack]... even more if raging!). No concerns about people feeling useful or not- the wizard adds plenty in other ways and everyone contributes, but I am wondering if I need to adjust encounters in someway.

For example, the group has a CR2 encounter coming up against a boar as part of Burnt Offerings. The boar has only 18 HP which means it is very possible the encounter will be over when the first hit lands. Is this the expected way for combat to play out at low levels, or am I missing something/needing to make adjustments?

Thanks again!

Hey folks. GMing Burnt Offerings (first time GM) and rather than make a dozen new threads as new questions pop up, I thought I would just bump this when I get stuck. Currently all of the soft stuff of keeping the players happy and engaged are going great, but could use a hand on some of the "hard" stuff. The current head scratcher is...

TREASURE:

1. When running an adventure path, do you ONLY award explicitly stated treasure, or do you determine random treasure as well for foes defeated?

2. Does a monster with specific loot in an adventure path also drop regular treasure in addition to its listed treasure?

3. I know you "buy" magic items from loot rewards (e.g., more items is less GP), but is there any specific guidance on how many items to buy in this way? There is a big difference between a PC getting a single minor magic item at level 2 vs 1,000 GP in cold hard cash.

4. Using the loot tables and loot by level...

Here is where I get a bit lost. Conceptually, I know that you award treasure in such a way that the PCs have more or less the expected GP for their level (see #3). I get that it can balance out overall (no treasure when you fight the ooze, double the treasure when you beat the boss) but how I actually go about figuring out loot for an encounter is a challenge.

Example: The PCs so far have defeated:

Encounter A- 3 Goblin (CR 1/3) [CR 1]

Encounter B- 2 Goblins (CR 1/3) Goblin Chanter (CR 1/2) [CR 2]

Encounter C- 1 Goblin Commando (CR 1/2) Goblin Dog (CR 1) 3 Goblins (CR 1/2) [CR 2/3? Not listed in the book]

(These three encounters are scripted with no break in between)

Encounter D- 2 Skeletons (CR 1/3) [CR1? Not listed in the book]

The only treasure explicitly listed is one potion for both the commando and the chanter, their equipment, and 20 GP. That leaves 8 goblins, 2 skeletons (no treasure) and a dog who didn't drop any treasure. In the case of the goblins they appear to only have combat gear (and whatever "other" treasure is) but if it were standard treasure,I'm a bit baffled as to whether this was 2 total encounters or four. The PCs are expected to get 400GP per encounter, which means if each of these awarded that much they are 1,200GP behind where they should be. They only have a fight or two before they reach level 2, and they are certainly going to be behind the expected $1K per person at this rate.

Mathematically it is easy enough to figure out the number of encounters expected per level and how many "encounters" it should take to level, so my thought is something like this.

PC Expected Wealth By Level 2: 1,000*4= 4,000 total to be awarded (Ignore starting equipment)

% of level gained by encounter(s) * 4,000= Gold to award

So judgmentally, if the encounters above got the PCs roughly 1/3 of a level, they would need to receive ~1,300GP from the encounter to be on track. Obviously it can be less than that and money is obtained from other sources (quest rewards, hidden treasure outside of the encounter, etc.) but I think this is the basic idea. If this is the case should I be "deducting" the value of scripted adventure path awards from the loot I am doling out?

Sorry for the long-winded questions, but hopefully you can see what I am trying to get at. Your thoughts and pointers are appreciated.

I'm trying to put together a cleric that will have the sole focus of drawing enemy attention while being nigh-unhittable. The character will be used for some Pathfinder Society games. I'm a pathfinder newbie, so your help would be appreciated!

[PROPOSED STATS]
LG Dwarf Cleric
Str 14
Dex 12
Int 7
Wis 18
Con 16
Cha 10

Domains: Law and Freedom

Variant Channeling: Law (Helpful) http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spellcastingClassOptions/c leric.html

At level 2 grab a level in fighter to gain access to full plate, tower shield, and shield focus. After that back to full time cleric.

[RATIONALE]
Law domain chosen primarily for the channeling. Giving the party +5 on all saves alone is pretty major, and with the attack bonuses added on it is all the better.

Freedom domain so that on the off chance that something IS able to make me fail saving throw, any incapacitation will be short lived.

Multi-class into fighter because it makes more sense than dumping multiple feats for heavy armor and tower shield proficiencies.

[PLANNED "SPECIAL TOUCHES"]
I have some interesting ideas planned to make my character a threat and add some unique value. Would like to hear your thoughts or if there is anything I am overlooking that would make these not work.

C'mon, hit me: Cast http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/compel-hostility and then sanctuary. Forces the enemy to attack me unless they succeed on a save, and even if they do they must then pass the sanctuary check.

You can't catch me, I'm on fire: Cast http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/r/resist-energy and then light myself on fire. As long as I'm not taking more than 10 damage, I should be dandy. Why do this? Being grappled/eaten/mauled is never fun, and if they try it they will regret it. My thought is that I would basically douse myself in oil before and light er up the start of each dungeon dive. Any reason this wouldn't work.

[OTHER MUST HAVES]
I have only played pathfinder once so I am sure I am missing out on some other neat things I could do here. In particular I don't know what other feats/spells would be good to accompany this. Overall though I think a perpetually on fire dwarf compelling things to attack him should make for some interesting adventures. Any thoughts/suggestions? Thanks in advance for any help.