Shane Leahy's page

60 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I am still waiting for the copies to show up over here in the UK. As one of the play testers for 'Elementary, My Dear Wizard' I need to get my autographed copy.

I just got an email saying I am in the Beta so I will get to check it out.

I have used Fantasy Grounds in the past so I have a bit of experience with VT's.

As long as it looks good enough to get the point across and the functionality is there it could be good.

And I agree, it will have to integrate with other webtools. Let the players create thier characters with the CB and then 'flag' them as being in a game which gives the DM access to them.

Could you not simply treat the Raptor area as terrain?

Any character starting their turn in the Raptor area takes XX ongoing damage and is considered to be Slowed (or some other condition to show the difficulty of moving in the area with raptors attacking them).

Any AOE damage that does YY will clear the effect area of raptors for a round stopping the ongoing damage and condition for that round.

The players would still have to use skills and other things to get out of the pit but it opens up the possibility of using powers and such.

porpentine wrote:

"The Lance is a two-handed weapon that can be used in only 1 hand whilst mounted."

This is misleading: your inclusion of 'only' suggests that two-handed use isn't allowed in the rules, whereas in fact it is the default.

Check the book. This is the wording:

"While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."

Big difference (though I'm not sure if you intended it to be).

Honestly, folks, there is nothing about this that suggests 'loopholes' or 'cheese' or 'milking' to me. The default method of handling a lance, in-game, is two-handed; mounted, you have *the option" of wielding it one-handed. That's an advantage of the weapon. You're taking that advantage, making a meal of it, and turning it into a disadvantage. Does the melee combatant need that? Is this such a glaring failure of simulation that it jars worse than mounted spiked chains?

Yes, it's always your own game. If the GM feels that the rules as written don't fit, then he can always rewrite them. If you're doing it to enhance setting flavour and homeworld atmosphere, all power to ya.

If, on the other hand, you're nerfing the lance because it seems like a 'loophole', a 'milking' of the rules for greater damage, then I believe such nerfing is misplaced (because the meleer does not need mechanical nerfing). And since these are the terms being used in the opening posts, that's what I perceive to be the case.

My mistake, you are correct. But what it boils down to is there is no need to use it with two hands while mounted because you still get the bonus from power attack when using it with one hand.

'This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls.'
from Pathfinder SRD (Copied it directly this time)

midknight wrote:

I'd allow it.

For me, it's just the same as a bastard sword or a dwarven battleaxe. They are two handed weapons that can, under some circumstances, be used one-handed.

Flavor-wise, I see handling a lance with two hands from the saddle not any more unrealistic as handling a greatsword, a scythe, a double-bladed sword or a spiked chain (poor lil horse!), and I see no reason to put more burden on the system with more unnecessary rolls.

Sorry, but they are not the same. Under the Pathfinder SRD, Bastard Swords and Dwarven Waraxes are 1 handed weapons. However without the exotic weapon training they must be used as two handed weapons (assuming martial training).

The Lance is a two-handed weapon that can be used in only 1 hand whilst mounted.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

A Lance is a Two-Handed weapon, listed under "two-handed weapons" in the equipment section of the Pathfinder book. If a character wielded it one handed they would actually suffer penalties for doing so.

Also the wording for the lance's rules read:

"A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand."

The keyword there is can, not must. If the player chooses to forego the bonus from his shield to get that extra damage in, more power to him.

Also if I remember correctly there is an old arguement that states the Lance is a two-handed weapon that can be wielded with one hand. This does not remove the two-handed property, so even while using it with one hand it is still treated as two-handed for feats and other abilities.

Not saying I agree with it but it has been argued in the past.

Well the encounter was a success. I went with 6 minions and 2 skirmishers. It was a little underpowered but the party was off balance a bit with the shrinking and being seperated. The wizard did the best with Thunderwave being used to push alot of the kobolds off his chair. The cleric and ranger had the most problems as they were on benches but were able to group up. That meant they had 2 assault groups to deal with. The fighter did not have any worries but took the longest. I decided not to have the chief and his bodyguards enter the fight. The party needs to head up to the lair to get the paladin's gear (he was a prisoner when the encounter started)so the fight will happen.

The evening ended with the party bunking down in a corner for a rest. The cleric on watch duty when she heard some large scratching and two LARGE red eyes peering at her through the darkness.

One thing I really liked about the encounter was the fact that since the paladin was a prisoner he encountered Tanin, the illusionist. Since I did not have any stats for her, I was able to use her illusion powers as I wanted. She did a basic one of the cage door being fine after it had been busted open, a simple illusion of the paladin as a kobold to get him close to an assualt groups ropes so they could climb down. The best was when the party on the floor (they had the rope) was trying to convince the wizard and fighter stuck on the chairs to jump as they were sure (well mostly) that the fall would not hurt as much. The illusionist cast a 'spell' of feather landing. The wizard fell for it. The dwarf fighter simply replied 'B*&~*&~s to that Boys!'. He eventually jumped.

Overall fun fight. Now to figure out the stats for the 'normal-sized' rats. I used the monster builder to upgrade the Dire Rat but they seem mundane, no powers, nothing special about them really just the disease.

I am working on converting Chadranthar's Bane from the old Dungeon mag.

My problem is with the first encounter with the goblins. I have decided to use kobolds instead of goblins because they have already encountered goblins and I use the Paizo goblins so I do not think they will mix well.

The basis of the encounter is the party has just been shrunk and have been split up, some possibly on chairs others on benches with quite some distance between them. Now the kobolds have 4 groups of 10 kobolds each that lower themselves down to areas to get the players. There is also a reserve of 10 and the leader and his bodyguards along with the witchdoctor.

Now if these was one mass group attacking, even if in waves then it would be easy to balance against the entire party. But with this setup it becomes difficult because the party will be split up, each member alone and not much chance of help right away.

My idea is to make each group seperately but not sure what XP to use for the group. Each player is level 5, and I want the fight to be tough but not a slaughter. I am thinking 7 minions and 3 other types. I guess my question boils down to, what level should I balance the kobold group to be a challenge for a single level 5 PC.

I am still getting my feet under me with 4th Ed, and normally if I make an encounter too tough fudging is easy, but with this setup I have very little chance to tweak things on the fly.

A bit of background first.

I am working on some ideas for a campaign to be run at a monthly Meetup. Each player would have a character that they can play at each Meetup they attend. Over time, some will level faster then others depending on how many times they can attend. Now at the Meetup we would not want to limit people by saying 'Sorry this adventure is for level X and you are only X-2, better luck next time.'

I would try and group similar level characters together but this may not always be possible. So my basic plan is this.

The adventure is set for a basic level (ie 4) then characters 1 level higher or lower can join without a problem (3-5). If someone only has a level 1 or level 2 they can play with the following modificiations. The character is boosted to level 3 (lowest level for the adventure). They gain the level bonuses (+1/2 level) to all skills, stats, rolls, etc that they apply to, along with the hit points for thier level. They do not gain any powers, feats, skills, etc that a level gain would warrent.

To my thinking this allows a player with a lower level character to participate more without feeling like a wrong move will kill them right away and it means they can actually contribute to the adventure mechanically. It allows a smooth power boost when required that can be removed for the next game. It does not take away from what the other players have achieved by gaining levels for thier characters. There may be a maximum how much you can boost someone, but I doubt we would have large ranges for levels.

Is there something I am missing that may make this unworkable? And yes, I got the basic concept from Warhammer Online.

Since alot of the Adventure Path maps that would require battlemat scale are dungeon type (indoors or outdoors) perhaps there is a simplier solution.

Instead of the entire map created, you simply supply the basic building blocks.

A 2x2, 2x6, etc bit of map drawn to scale. The user prints out what he wants and arranges it to match the map in the adventure.

I am sure you could do this with what WWG is providing. Print a couple floor plans out (without the walls) and arrange them differently.

Sure you lose some of the extras that a full proper map would provide, that is not happening. Instead you get the same basic feel for an adventure path/dungeon.

The method I like using to combine rolling and point buy is simple. Each player spends 28 or 25 points as per normal and get thier stats. They then roll a 3d6 for each stat. They take the higher of the point buy or roll for each stat.

My players normally broke down into two camps. The first would ignore the rolls and get the stats they wanted and then anything from the rolls would be extra. The others would put 8's in thier dump stats and hope for a good roll to help them out.

Use for a d14, determining when an event will occur in the next fortnight.

I am on Kirin Tor, Horde of course.

Current Grand Poobah of World's End Regulars

Grami - Orc Rogue 72
Motgut - Forsaken Priest 70
Grishi - Troll Hunter 70
Ruairi - Blood Elf Paladin 70
Alberta - Tauren Warrior 68

and various other alts all less then 60.

I would suggest you try the East Midlands Meetup group.

They are also tied in with the West Midlands group.

I am in Nottingham so a bit too far I think.

Another suggestion that may seem strange at first.

If you are doing AP minis, do not limit yourself to just monsters.

The statue in the final encounter for that module
The evil looking throne where the BBEG sits
Some random furnture that can get tossed around during the bar brawl

You could also do generic dungeon dressing like statues, chests, iron maidens, etc.

I am planning to start work on a conversion of Chadranther's Bane (Dungeon #18) to Fourth Edition. I am planning to do it up properly and not just a bunch of scribbled notes on loose paper. I would like to be able to share this with others if they want it. What is Paizo's policy on conversions of older adventures?

Of course I will not be including the adventure itself, just new stats (or pointers to the new monsters), traps, etc. And maybe suggestions on how to modify the map if needed (more room for the encounter, or making multiple rooms into one encounter).


Re: Raise Dead and penalties.

I always liked Andy Collins idea on how to handle it and started using it in my campaigns.

Basically if you are brought back from the dead you gain a negative level which does the following:
-1 to all skill checks, attack rolls, saving throws and ability checks
-5 Hit Points from Maximum
Lose the highest level spell they can cast.

This negative level can only be removed by gaining a level or by questing for the church/diety that allowed the player to be raised.

This gives a penalty for dying but no more trying to remember what you took when you last leveled and you know it will be going away. It is also easy to keep track of.

For my 4th edition campaign I am using a homebrew ‘Points of Light’ setting. However, I could not pass up the use of the Paizo goblin fluff, so in they went. Now during one of the first fights my players encountered a Warchanter which I based on a modified Goblin Hexer. One of his powers was a song that he sung to inspire the goblins by basically telling them what to do to the players, in very gruesome terms. I have also been portraying the goblins as very clever and cunning but not that bright, almost hyperactive ADD. This causes a problem because I want the goblins to be able to have cunning plans and such to challenge the players however I think I came up with a solution. The goblins have songs they use to focus themselves on the task at hand. The songs are basically the same song with just different words describing what they have to do.

The following song is the first one I did up for them. The premise behind it is that the goblins need a little girl kidnapped from the village so they have to get from the forest were they live, past the woodcutter who breeds dogs, to the village, get the girl (though they do not know where she is so any and all children will do), and get back out. I introduced the song to the players when they over heard a not so bright goblin singing it to himself so he would remember what he had to do next.

Goblin Training Song

We Be Goblins, We Be Sneaky
To the edge of trees We go
Sneak past the Longshank and his evil dogs
Sneak to where the Longshanks live

We Be Goblins, We Be Crafty
Into the Longshanks huts we go
Through window, through door, through holes
Sneaky still, quiet as death

We Be Goblins, We Be Killers
Kill the dogs before they wake
Slit the throats and bash the skulls
Longshanks do not get up

We Be Goblins, We Be Thieves
Bop the little Longshanks on the heads
Do not crush the skull
Put them in a sack

We Be Goblins, We Be Done
Little Longshanks in a sack
Carry them back to the Boss
Boss rewards Goblins

We Be Goblins, We Be Fed!

I need a map to use for a dungeon below an old Abbey. I dont really have the time to make one myself. Any interesting ones out there that could be of use?

The Abbey above ground is in ruins (see Whitby Abbey which was my inspiration) and all that really remains is the dungeons below. Clerics of Ioun were starting to return and worship at the abbey and explore it when Cultists of some demon or evil god (still have to decide that bit) arrived, killed the clerics and started exploring themselves. They are looking for something in the dungeons below.

Thanks for the help.

I have started (again) to work on my Tomb Kings army. Going for a purple color scheme with bronzes and brasses for the metal. Trying to do a Scarab theme to tie everything together.

My problem is I have to get it to a high standard as when I actually start playing it will be on the Warhammer World tables in Nottingham. Well they don't demand it but I could not put something not up to snuff down.

P1NBACK wrote:
Shane Leahy wrote:
I think one of the best resources for new Rituals would be the 3.5 books. Look for spells that fall under the same basic principle as the spells that have already been converted to rituals. Then using the old stats for the spells and the conversion between the spells and rituals that have been published you should be able to come up with reasonable stats and costs.
For the time constrained or lazy DM, this doesn't help, but it's really good advice if you are willing to take some time and effort to work some up.

True, but as one of those types of DMs, that is what players are for. 'You want to research a ritual? Do the work and show me what you come up with. Use these as guidelines.'

I think one of the best resources for new Rituals would be the 3.5 books. Look for spells that fall under the same basic principle as the spells that have already been converted to rituals. Then using the old stats for the spells and the conversion between the spells and rituals that have been published you should be able to come up with reasonable stats and costs.

There was a poster on Cirvs Maximus (ENWorld sister board) that was detailing a solo paladin campaign for 3.5. The basic concept could work for you also.

Have the ranger work for the King and is sent to a small village near the borderlands to the wild as a Peace officer, warden, whatever. Then the basic plots are defending the area. It can be a wild beast moving into the area, an orc warband passing through, etc.

The paladin campaign was setup such that the adventures were designed to introduce the powers of the paladin as they were gained.

My Downloads are starting to really fill up espically with the purchase of all the DCC that I just ordered. Would it be possible to get some way to organize the PDFs? Put each product line under its own tab? I can understand if the user cannot make thier own but if it was done automatically it would make life so much simplier.

Some basic ideas could be:

Pathfinder Companions
Pathfinder Adventure Path 1
Pathfinder Adventure Path 2
And then perhaps by Company.


I think starting out right with a fight is the way to go also. Perhaps you could do something that gives the party a fight that does not directly tie into Whispering Cairn (I think there was a post awhile back that used the Mine Manager's office). Then send them back to Diamond Lake for the town stuff and finally let them head back to the Cairn.

If you are going to go with Premade characters, I would make sure you let them do the stats and then after the first session modify the characters a bit, drop a power, change a feat whatever. Give them enough to get things going but let them get what they want in the end.

The one I will always remember is the party was fighting a group of dwarves and the leader of the dwarves had the ability to enlarge himself so he did. Then the rogue decided he should sneak attack him, moving around him to get into a flank position. He moves his mini, I ask him if he is tumbling around the LARGE dwarf. He replies "Nah, he cannot reach me." Which of course is wrong since he is large now, one attack of opportunity later with the enlarged War Axe that was a critial and the rogue is left with 1 hp. He is quite happy and pleased with himself, until there is a comment from one of the other players looking at the two dice I rolled for damage.

"Don't axes do Triple damage?"

My first 4E campaign will be homebrewed...BUT...

The woods to the north of the village where the characters are starting from, the woods known to be infested with creatures that normally come out at night, the woods that the woodcutter lives on the edge of and he keeps several large dogs, the woods that strange laughter and singing comes from at night, the woods that contain a road that you have to get through in one day otherwise, the woods that have random small fires, you know those woods.

I may be taking other bits of Pathfinder (maps, monster fluff, and the like) and adding to my homebrew.

Could you not do something like the reserve feats?

It does X damage (not sure what it is currently) + 1d6 for every 2 levels of the highest spell memorized?

So a 5th level Wizard that has a 3rd level spell memorized would do an extra 1d6 damage, the 9th level Wizard with the 4th level spell would do 2d6. Or it could even be for every level of spell.

For the look of the high tech gear I would go with the old pictures from the modules themselves. They have a strange retro vibe to them and not everything is easily identified as a weapon or what the purpose is.

I prefer the Acrobatics check sets the Reflex save for those that threaten the area. This means there is one DC, set by the acrobat for everyone trying to attempt to react to his movement to take an attack of opporturity.

One reason I prefer the saving throw is that there is always a chance (roll a natural 20) that the attack could be bad. It is never a given.

One option that I have seen work in the past was to keep the cost as XP but allow 'Power Components' to be used to pay the XP cost.

Want a Flaming Sword? The heart of a salamander is worth 80 XP towards the cost of XP.

Or if you want to go with Gold, it is worth 400 gold, when considering crafting.

The cost of crafting a magic item could be the idea of the crafter buying the parts he needs or if he wants to he could simply go out and gather the items himself.

Why couldn't you do something like this?

Under Weapon Training for the fighter add the line(s):

If the fighter has Weapon Focus in a weapon listed in his chosen group of weapons, the feat applies to all weapons in that group.

Do the same for specialization, imp. critical, etc.

That means the feats are left as they are for other classes but fighters now get a better benefit for them.

A another option (which I think comes from a different d20 system) is that for every X levels of a favoured class you get a free feat.

One method my old group tried a few times was to combine point buy with rolling.

1) Use a 25 point buy and generate your stats as normal.
2) Roll 3d6 against each stat in order
3) Take the higher of the two values either the point buy or the roll.

This is a couple of things.
First, it made some more organic characters. Every wizard was no longer a weakling, you got a fighter that had a high wisdom, etc.
You also keep the control of making the basic character you want by using the point buy.

Now my players broke down into two basic groups using this system.

Some would by one or two high stats and leave the rest at 8 and hope for a couple of good rolls. The rest would ignore the roll, buy their stats as normal and then treat the rolls as extras.

This method certainly made for some interesting characters.

Ideally I would like a simple copy of the map with all the text removed, and secret doors and such removed. THat way I can use it online for games and if I want to print it larger for minitures it is simple.

A simple question, will you still be able to get the maps and pictures from the Pathfinder online like you can currently for Dungeon? The reason I ask is I currently run my campaign on Fantasy Grounds online, and one big feature of the Adventure paths is the pics and maps already done for me, just a quick cut and paste and I am ready to go.

Even if they were in a section where you had to log in to download them would be fine.


Well guess I should have looked a bit deeper and found out about the PDFs before posting this. Perfect.

The only dungeon adventure I have run more then once...

It is a simple inn and I cannot even remember the name of it.

But back in the garden rests the item known as Chadranthar's Bane (I hope I spelt that correctly)

Could the threat not be something as simple as a computer virus. That can then make the jump to living beings. (Which might be the basis of the Cell).

Or the virus simply destroys technology. The BBEG does not want to kill everyone, he wants them all to go back to a 'simplier' time.

Thanks, its near perfect. Just have to see what my photoshop skills are like to add some color and then off to see what I can find for a token for Ilthane.

Anyone have a good map for the area around Whispering Cairn? I am getting ready to run A Gathering of Winds and want a map to have the battle on. I have done some searching but nothing that looks promising. I play on Fantasy Grounds so need an electronic copy.

Perhaps its time to get CC3 and do it myself.

Delericho wrote:

You realise that that scheme actually favours players who spend all their points in two attributes, and leave the rest at 8? The lower a score is, the greater the likelihood of rolling better.

In play though I don't see that happening...Not many would want to risk have that 8. Never did work out the odds though...

By playing it safe, I mean that they will get the stats they need and not put anything too low. Get their 12s and 14s, maybe with a 15 in a prime stat. Others will say screw it, get the 18 and hope they roll higher then the 8 on the other stats.

What we liked about it is that it created some organic characters. Someone may have a fighter that ends up with a 15 Intelligence.

My group has used many different ways to roll stats.

One that we liked that had some randomness was simple...

25 point buy. Then roll 3d6 for each stat in order. Keep the point buy or the roll whichever is higher. Some players play it safe and get the stats they need, the others risk it get one good stat and hope for the best.

For my Age of Worms game we have tried something else. 25 point buy, but no stat increase every four levels. Instead every level you get points to use in the stat buy. The stats are not any higher, on average they may be, but if you want to change your character during the campaign it is easier. For example, you are playing a fighter with an average wisdom. He sees the light and wants to become a cleric. Normally he could not do it. With this system he can increase his wisdom easily enough (it will never be real high) to be a cleric.
Here is a link (I hope it works) that shows how the system works. TabID=537859&TopicID=1887078

About the minitures...

Did a quick look...

For all the sets we have...

Greyhawk 4
Eberron 18
Forgotten Realms 26
Dragonlance 3
Generic 481
Total 532

Now I might have missed a few that I did not realize were Eberron and I also did not place all the Core God miniatures as Greyhawk.

The ones I am most unsure about are the Crow Shamans and the Samuri minis...

What sort of action should it be to use the feat to shorten the grip or to go back to reach?

I am thinking of a swift action or a move action depending on what the player wants to do.

Swift so it can only be done on the players turn, and only once, and a move action if they want to spend the extra time.

So a player could start with having reach, then at the beginning of thier turn use a swift action to shorten thier grip, attack with a standard action, and then use the move action to lengthen thier grip again.

Any thoughts?

Running AoW on FG, and I need a map for Monday. I want to run at least one random encounter while the party is headed to Blackwall Keep. I am trying to find one now but not having much luck. So I need a tactical map, with a road in some hills.


One of my players has taken to posting a in-character Campaign diary on the public section of our website. I thought I would post a link if any were interested. He is still working on the formatting and such. It is written from his point of view and there may be mistakes, ommisions, etc.

The party make is:

Fzul - Paladin of Heironeous - author of the diary.
Tesmira - Fighter wielding a Longspear
Balinor - Dwarven Lock and Trapsmith - not known for his bravery
Stoney - Cleric/Wizard of Wee Jas
Therick Gray - Cleric of Heironeous
Maraver - Draconic Sorcerer TabID=537859&TopicID=1964100

My group uses teamspeak, but we normally use it just for ooc and talking about combat. Most of the ic stuff is done on FG. I really like being able to 'change my voice' depending on the NPC.

I don't resize maps at all, just zoom in until the token fits and then lock the scale. Then again we are just using the tokens that come with FG along with another set of the same size but are more icons (hand, mask, etc).

Wizards site is great for finding pictures, with their art galleries from various books. This works quite well with so many different monsters being used in the AoW.

Here is a question, has FG changed the way you play, or empahisis different things? I have started paying alot more attention to light sources. Each player with a light source draws a circle to display their light source. Really drives home for some, just what they can and cannot see.

There has been talk of avoiding sharing the wrong information when it comes to using Fantasy Grounds, which I support. I do not want to get the FG guys in trouble, espically since thier software is so nice.

So what is Paizo's stance of those of us using FG to run AoW of sharing information amongst ourselves, or even posting it if it was allowed.

All I enter into FG for the games are the stat blocks for the monsters not in the SRD, and the boxed text. So if someone had my files, they would not be able to run the adventures. I do not include any of the maps, pictures or anything else I gather from the web.

Just asking for some clarification. Thanks

Well I have 3 Faces of Evil done, all the boxed text typed in and the monsters not found in the SRD. All linked with spells, pictures, etc. I am using the 20SRD from Digital Adventures. Best five dollars I spent for Fantasy Grounds.

I can email my DB.XML if anyone wants.

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>