So I really dislike wording in the rules that creates ambiguity. While listening to the Glass Cannon Podcast some issues with Fascinated condition came up that really made me start thinking about how it's used. On two separate occasions The DM Troy used the fascinate ability of two creatures (Frost Worm and Yuki-onna) in ways that did make sense, but because of the wording of Fascinate pretty much everyone on the forums disagreed with how Troy used the ability.
Really digging into the wording of Fascinated most of the reasoning used as to why it is an ability that can't be used in combat comes from the line "drawing a weapon". Most arguments I've read basically boil down to "you can't know who you're drawing a weapon at so it must be to everyone who can see it", followed up by "that action is more threatening than drawing a weapon so it would also break Fascinated".
So to maintain the spirit of what I believe to be a fun way to use this ability in combat (since it seems to me that it's rarely if ever used outside of combat anyway), without it being abused I think I'll home brew the wording from this:
Original wording:
Fascinated: A fascinated creature is entranced by a supernatural or spell effect. The creature stands or sits quietly, taking no actions other than to pay attention to the fascinating effect, for as long as the effect lasts. It takes a –4 penalty on skill checks made as reactions, such as Perception checks.
Any potential threat, such as a hostile creature approaching, allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect. Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect.
A fascinated creature’s ally may shake it free of the spell as a standard action.
To this:
New wording:
Fascinated: A fascinated creature is entranced by a supernatural or spell effect. The creature stands or sits quietly, taking no actions other than to pay attention to the fascinating effect, for as long as the effect lasts. It takes a –4 penalty on skill checks made as reactions, such as Perception checks.
Any potential threat, such as a hostile creature approaching or someone drawing a weapon, allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect. Any obvious threat directed at the fascinated creature, such as someone raising a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon, automatically breaks the effect.
A fascinated creature’s ally may shake it free of the spell as a standard action.
So what does everyone think? Does this make Fascinated too powerful of a condition just waiting to be abused, or does it make it just somewhat more useful which makes classes and creatures with this ability a bit more interesting?
@Geruvurrda: I certainly see this side of things, and that's part of why I'm on the fence about it. I don't think anyone would really cry OP in our group either. The main issue I take in the much bigger picture is how much less appealing playing a Rogue tends to be when one of their main niches is reduced to just a feat that anyone can have.
Without this one specific campaign trait I've found that gaining Trapfinding is actually pretty difficult and usually involves taking at least a one level dip into another class if not 2 or 3. To compound this I feel like it's even more out of line that the player's Eidolon gets the ability without the character even to have to burn a feat to gain Trapfinding.
@Everyone: The last thing I'm thinking about is how this will affect the overall game. I kinda think there is a certain amount of opportunity cost that players pay when they pick which classes they want to play. If for instance everyone wanted to play some kind of marital character, and no one picked a spellcaster then around level 10 or so, overland travel is going to generally be harder. Maybe not gamebreaking or anything, but it will be a problem they have to solve. Where as with a Wizard in the party it would literally just be a one night rest and they potentially have the problem solved for almost no cost.
If a group decides to go without a Rogue or Sandman Bard or something then Traps become a somewhat more difficult challenge that will force them to think of alternative solutions because they don't have that one character who can walk up and make potentially a single roll to overcome the challenge.
In the end I realize it's probably not going to be that impactful either way. Not counting Trapfinding's Disable Device bonus, it just allows the ability to disable magic traps. They already can disable normal traps with a good Disable Device and magic traps can be dealt with a Dispel Magic spell or in a number of other ways. It seems to me that Trapfinding ends up just being a sudo at will Dispel Magic that is specific to magic traps.
TLDR: Can a player choose the Additional Traits feat for an Eidolon to gain the Trap Finder trait to gain the Trap Finding ability?
So I'm running Curse of the Crimson Throne. We're in Chapter 3: Escape from Old Korvosa. One of my players is a Summoner who took the Shadow Summoner archetype and has really played up the idea that his Eidolon is his shadow, even to the point where his shadow is an actual Shadow creature that's lost its powers (some backstory I've been working with him on). So his Ediolon is built as basically a sneaky skill monkey. He's taken Dampen Presence and Skill Evolutions for Stealth, Disable Device, etc.
Now here's my question. He wants his Eidolon to take the feat "Additional Traits" and take the trait "Trap Finder" from Mummy's Mask campaign. I have two issues with this.
First, can non-player characters have traits? I had never seen any rules on this or examples in other games so it seemed like traits were always a special PC thing.
Second, I'm not terribly keen on players picking traits from other campaigns with the exception that its a campaign that we as a group had at least tried to play in the past (which Mummy's Mask is not).
So the other relevant detail is that there are no Rogues in the party, which is his main argument and really the only reason I'm considering this. On one hand I understand its a niche not being filled at the moment and that building his Shadow this way is an effort to fill this roll. On the other hand my players know they may change characters between chapters or in the case of a character death. This player in particular already changed from a Rogue to a Summoner. So I feel that allowing the Shadow to gain Trap Finding does take away a special incentive for anyone to choose a Rogue if they wanted to.
I know according to Pathfinder Society rules he would not be able to take it, and I know since its a home game I can change the rules as needed. I'm just a bit on the fence about it, leaning towards saying no, but would appreciate some advice. What does everyone else think?
OK, thank you both for the input! That's actually very helpful. I knew that if I made a character to play myself that I might run into some meta game issues. If it's that extensive then I may rethink things.
I do like the setup you created to incorporate Academy of Secrets. I may just have to take you up on that offer and borrow it. :)
Also, thank you for the recommendation Yossarian. I bought House on Hook Street along with some other adventures I saw set in Korvosa and did see that it had some pretty good reviews. I'll talk it over with my player and see if that sounds good to him.
Wow! That map is sweet! I hope you're still working on a version that includes the locations for Chapters 4 and 5. I'm working on a easy to use travel system that would allow the players to move a token across the map so that it feels more like traveling without getting tedious. I'd love to use what you've created here with the addition of the Cinderlands, Scarwall, and possibly enough of Marshfen to include travel there.
One other small request. Could you create a version without all the names? I'd be happy to add them myself has the players discover them.
TLDR: Does Academy of Secrets spoil the story in Curse of the Crimson Throne?
So I've been running a Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign for my group for the last 2 years or so. We're about the finish the 3rd chapter, Escape from Old Korvosa, and one of my players has suggested running a one shot module to give me a break and a chance to join the rest of the players. While talking about this he had an idea I thought was pretty good. He suggested the module be set in the City of Korvosa and that the characters everyone builds could be the rest of the players backup characters in case someone had a player death. I thought this would work pretty well and that we could slot these new characters in as NPCs that could easily be called upon if ever the need arose.
So looking through the adventures set in Korvosa I found the Academy of Secrets. I have already been doing my best to really make the Korvosan setting as detailed and rich as possible, so all the players were already aware of the Breaching Festival. We have even been keeping pretty close track of time passing in our campaign with a Golarion calendar, and I have even made it a point to insert some of the other Korvosan specific and general holidays into our game (such as, the King died while everyone was celebrating Merrymead, and the plague in chapter 2 started spreading right after Taxfest). So everyone generally knows that the annual Breaching Festival is coming up, but considering everything that's happened in the city it makes since that the festival wouldn't happen during the events of the campaign. Instead the idea is that they will do it as a sort of flashback to one year ago where all the backup characters will be introduced.
Ok, so here is my question. Are there any spoilers for the Curse of the Crimson Throne Adventure Path in Academy of Secrets that would ruin my players experience if he ran the module? Since he has offered to run it and invited me to play as a PC in the module I can't really look for myself without spoiling the module. So I'm in need of some advice from someone who has run both who can help me and my player avoid the story spoilers of both.
Specifically I want to avoid spoiling the main plot of Curse of the Crimson Throne and all the things relevant to the Queen. I'd be more open to some spoilers for Lorthact as long as they don't give everything away (preferably just some tantalizing tid-bits that would make the players aware of the existence of other evil forces in Korvosa). I had thought of trying to incorporate his presence into the main plot, and perhaps use the suggestion of Lorthact as a story hook for a short post campaign adventure. If the spoilers are very expansive then we may need to look at some of the other modules, but if they are pretty limited then I was hoping to create a modified document for my player with the spoilers omitted (hoping that I can do so without spoiling the module to much for myself).
You lost me somewhere in that convoluted and confusing reasoning. It is that kind of thing that can become trickier to explain than it is to actually understand. I suspect you've mixed up your options, even.
I was about to redo the whole calculation step by step but I don't think that's the issue.
Rather : don't compare it to sneak attacks. At the very least, don't base all your logic on that comparison.
Painful stare will never happen more than once per round.
Sneak Attacks will happen with every single attack that qualifies.
Painful Stare is easy to qualify for : look at thendude, spend a swift. Done.
SA can happen a lot more often, but actual conditions have to be met. Dangerous ones, if you are but a fragile rogue exposing yourself to get that sweet, sweet flank.
Painful Stare can indeed deal more damage on a single occurence, with some investment.
A two weapon fighting slayer should trigger quite a few SA on a full-round.
That's difference enough to justify slightly different numbers.
As for Intense Pain, it's a shame it's worded the way it is. Something closer to the original ability would've been more explicit.
I've actually gone back and forth on this, but in the end the rule is (usually) : you are your own ally.
I believe that applies here.
In which case, you'd get both the flat bonus and the extra dices, while your buddies only get the flat bonus.
I could be wrong, it could be an exception, but that's how I'd rule it.
Thanks, I think you make some excellent points here. I was also thinking of Manifold Stare in the back of my mind allowing for more Painful Stare applications each round, but the fact that a player would have to take this as a feat three times to get four Painful Stares each round is a pretty huge cost. So I think your right, that's not a fair comparison with how much extra damage a Rogue (at least in melee) could do vs a Mesmerist.
I think the other big comparison I'm making in my head is with a Ranged Rogue or an Arcane Trickster trying to go for Sneak Attacks at range each round. It feels mostly balanced to me (even if they get the flat damage + the bonus d6 damage) if the Mesmerist has to roll a ranged attack or at least a ranged touch attack since Rogues or AT have to work so hard to make this work, but for Mesmerists it seems they can get this to work with even just a Magic Missile for almost automatic damage with all their bonus damage each round. I did alot of reading on the Magic Missile question and I have to agree that even by RAW its pretty clear that it would trigger Painful Stare for the bonus damage. I will acknowledge that there are some relatively easy ways to stop a Magic Missile, so I have some solutions if I ever felt it was a problem.
I just want to be sure that adding the flat bonus with the d6's from Painful Stare is what was intended so that I'm not giving an unfair advantage to a Mesmerist over a Ranged Rogue or AT.
Oh yeah. The ability’s wording is too vague. But in this case, it’s a kind of vague we’ve seen before. Yet, while we can make educated guesses as to how an ability is supposed to work, we can’t be 100% sure without another more specific ruling.
I’ll note that while I very strongly suspect the original intent was for two way communication, it wouldn’t be unusual for Paizo to use a vagueness like this to take summoners down another notch.
Lol, yeah. I didn't really know all the background about Summoners when my player pitched his idea so I didn't think much of letting him play the original version. Since then I've seen quite a bit and had to make a number of calls on quirky aspects of the class.
Remember that a familiar has an empathic link to its master, and its animal instincts can lead to plot hooks. For example, a toad familiar might project feelings of hunger whenever a member of a fly-demon cult is nearby, a bat familiar might express curiosity about the words a weird hermit is muttering under his breath, and a rat familiar might feel fear when a dangerous assassin walks into the room.
So, we know that for a familiar's similarly worded ability, it is meant to work both ways. And we can logically assume the text for the eidolon was based off of the familiar's ability. And so the eidolon's ambiguously worded language is likely meant to be read in the same way as the familiar's.
Well, I'll honestly say that I was unaware of this excerpt from Ultimate Campaign. I'll say that it does provide the necessary clarification on how the familiar's Empathic Link ability was intended to work, and I'll even admit that it does make me reconsider my ruling regarding the eidolon's Link ability. That said I do want to bring up two additional aspects to this conversation.
First, I feel that you have made an excellent case that we can decide how the Eidolon's Link was intended to be understood based on comparisons to another similar ability of another class, and this is a fine and justifiable approach. But I do feel that ideally the original text of an ability should be clear enough that as players we can understand the ability without the need of comparison. And even if comparisons are necessary that the fewest number of steps would need to be taken. There is just alot of material out there and even with the help of everyone one the forums, it can sometimes just be too convoluted to make all the necessary connections. This is where FAQ's and Official responses from Paizo work very well to fill the gap to clarify published works that can't be updated without a new edition. So I still advocate that an official response from Paizo would be preferred for clarification.
Second, the logical assumption that the two abilities should work the same way because they are similar, or one based on the other is ultimately still an assumption on our part. If we question this assumption critically and there is enough evidence to show that similar abilities do not always follow the same intentions then we are back to square one. Unfortunately I don't have an example of this off the top of my head, so I'll wait till I have more of a chance to rummage through my books. Otherwise, point well taken Melkiador.
If we may approach this from a different angle. When I was trying to make a decision on this I was mostly considering the circumstances of the Summoner my player was creating for my game. In this case he is a Fetchling Shadow Caller who's eidolon was a Shadow. My player wanted to make a more scouting and skill focused eidolon that could gather information without putting his actual character in any danger. So obviously the question of whether or not the link connecting his Summoner and eidolon was a Telepathic or Empathic as well as one-way or two-way was pretty important.
The first thing I personally noted was that of all the "second character" options in the game (Animal Companion, Mount, Familiar, Eidolon, Cohort, or Follower) I did not find any other that came with a specific two-way telepathic link on obtaining that second character. So if this is how the Eidolon's link worked it would be unique compared to all the other available options.
Next I tried to evaluate how powerful an effect his would be. Going by the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list I found this could be accomplished with the spells.
And outside of some very specific magical items (which all seemed to cost more than the price of a Permanent Telepathic Bond), some unusual races, and some Psionic classes I haven't found any way to gain two-way telepathic communication. So since a limited version of this telepathic communication wasn't available until Level 5 as a Druid (and for only 1 minute/level) it seemed like a powerful enough ability that I should be reluctant to rule that this is how the power works permanently at level 1 for a Summoner.
Going with a stricter reading of the ability and not assuming anything outside of the text I felt that a one-way telepathic communication allowed for everything the wording described. And it also seemed reasonable that the Eidolon could send Empathic communications back. This did allow for some pretty good story telling moments. But it did certainly seem reasonable to gain the full two-way telepathic link as a Feat since Wizards could do so with their familiar, or with a discounted magic item, or discounted Permanency spell.
I guess I'll leave it to you and others on the board to decide (unless someone at Paizo wants to chime in), but I do think my conclusion was pretty reasonable considering the context.
This communication is a free action, allowing the summoner to give orders to his eidolon at any time.
This sentence was likely not to be meant as a restriction. Rather, it says that the communication is a free action, and then clarifying it could be used to give commands.
Sure, I would agree, its not a restriction. It's just clarifying the necessary type of action that needs to be taken.
Melkiador wrote:
Compare it to the wizard's familiar:
Quote:
Empathic Link (Su): The master has an empathic link with his familiar to a 1 mile distance. The master can communicate empathically with the familiar, but cannot see through its eyes. Because of the link's limited nature, only general emotions can be shared. The master has the same connection to an item or place that his familiar does.
So, if we were to use similar logic from the eidolon discussion, can the familiar not communicate empathically with the familiar?
I am assuming, but am I correct in understanding that your question is the following?
"...can the familiar not communicate empathically with the wizard?"
If so then based strictly on how this one sentence is worded I would say that like the phrasing for the Eidolon ability the meaning is unfortunately too ambiguous to be clearly defined without the help of the additional phrasing in the rest of the ability. The problem is that the word "Communicate" can either mean to transmit information (one way) or exchange information (two way).
If the wording were closer to the following:
Quote:
Speak with Master (Ex): If the master is 5th level or higher, a familiar and the master can communicate verbally as if they were using a common language. Other creatures do not understand the communication without magical help.
then I would conclude that the meaning is clear and that there is no room for misinterpretation.
So then the problem comes down to the following phrase in the Eidolon Link ability
Quote:
...allowing the summoner to give orders to his eidolon at any time.
While I can imagine that this phrasing was intended to imply that the eidolon is receiving orders, and that the Summoner clearly has control over the eidolon it also is the only example of the type of communication possible with this ability and it is described as a one-way communication.
I understand that the additional phrasing in the familiar ability Empathic Link puts the evidential weight on the side of two-way communication, but the additional phrasing in the eidolon's Link ability puts its weight more on the side of one-way communication. Since the text is not explicit enough in either case, and there is no official statements from the designer as far as I know, we must come to our own conclusion as a house rule. I can see why a GM would rule it either way simply because of the ambiguous language.
My ultimate ruling was that a Summoner can send Telepathic (full words and sentences) communication to his eidolon via the link, and that the eidolon could send Empathic (only emotions and feelings) communications back to the Summoner because I felt that it was a fair compromise.
But, the case is, my GMs reads the Link ability in another way.
He says that the Link description, readed literally, is that "communication" it's just give orders unidirectional from the summoner to the eidolon. Without feedback or questions from the eidolon side.
He thinks that because the "give orders" it's the only clarification added to the Link description, so it's the important part.
What do you say? Exists some official response about this question?
Thanks! :)
I actually made the same house ruling for the summoner in my game as well. I went through a similar process searching everywhere online for some kind of official ruling, but there just isn't anything out there to settle the matter.
I just took that first sentence of the Link ability literally:
"A summoner and his eidolon share a mental link..."
Ok, so a statement of fact that a mental connection exists.
"...allows for communication across any distance (as long as they are on the same plane)."
Next statement establishes the first limitation of the ability.
"This communication is a free action..."
Next statement further establishes the action needed to communicate.
"...allowing the summoner to give orders to his eidolon at any time."
Final part of the sentence specifies the nature of the communication.
Needless to say my player took your position Gaxxian, and it has been a topic of debate from time to time. We ended up compromising and saying that while the Summoner can send specific verbal communication to his eidolon mentally, that his eidolon could only send emotional communication similar to how familiars work. This also meant that if his eidolon went ahead and scouted for the party I switched to more Theater of the Mind and described what the eidolon was feeling before he came back to report, and the summoner would sometimes use his Bonded Senses ability to get a "live feed" of what was going on.
Obviously my player wanted a full on 2-way Telepathic Link with his eidolon so I gave him 2 options.
1) Buy a Permanent Telepathic Bond spell for the Summoner and Eidolon. (I was also considering making it cheaper since there was a weaker pre-existing bond already established).
2) I offered a modified version of the Telepathic Link feat so that its effect would work for the Summoner and Eidolon.
He decided on taking the feat so now when his Eidolon is exploring I allow the party to reveal the battle map and the Summoner basically controls him at all times now during play (I would only run the Eidolon when it was in a position where it had to make decisions on its own and the Summoner had more limited information).
So I'd like to get some clarification regarding how much damage the Mesmerist's Painful Stare ability is supposed to do. I found the following thread which asks the question quite well, but didn't want to necro the thread so I'll link it here.
Duskblade wrote:
Okay, I have a quick question about the 'painful stare' ability for the Mesmerist:
When an attack that deals damage hits the target of a mesmerist's hypnotic stare, the mesmerist can cause the target to take an amount of additional damage equal to 1/2 the mesmerist's class level (minimum 1).
The mesmerist can use this ability as a free action, and can use it even if it isn't his turn. If the mesmerist uses this ability to increase his own damage, the additional damage increases by 1d6 points for every 3 class levels the mesmerist possesses. This damage is precision damage and is not multiplied on a critical hit. A mesmerist can trigger this ability only once per round, but a single creature can take damage from multiple mesmerists' painful stares in a round.
Alright, for this example, let's assume that the mesmerist is 20th level: which of the following options represents how much damage the 'painful stare' ability would do if the mesmerist used it on himself...
a) 6d6 + 10 extra damage
or
b) 6d6 extra damage
I only ask because the wording almost seems to imply that the 'd6' precision damage replaces the previous 'flat bonus' to damage.
The two replies seem to agree that in the example provided the Mesmerist should deal a) 6d6 + 10 extra damage. If this is the case it would put the Mesmerist only about 1d6 damage behind the Rogues Sneak Attack progression (10d6 at lvl 20) in terms of average damage (3d6 being 10.5 damage on average).
So far I think this seems pretty balanced. I'd just like to confirm that this is in fact the intent of the design of the ability.
What confuses me is when we consider the Intense Pain feat, which states the following:
Quote:
Intense Pain (Combat, Stare)
You deal additional damage when using your painful stare.
Prerequisite(s): Mesmerist level 7th, painful stare class feature.
Benefit(s): When you use your painful stare ability to increase your own damage, you deal an additional 1d6 points of damage. This damage increases to 2d6 at Mesmerist level 12th and to 3d6 at Mesmerist level 18th.
When you use painful stare to augment an ally’s damage, the target of the painful stare takes 1 additional point of damage for every 4 Mesmerist levels you possess.
The extra d6's to damage are pretty strait forward, but the way its worded regarding the extra added to ally's damage makes me rethink the intent of the base Painful Stare ability. It seems like there are 3 ways you could interpret Intense Pain:
1) the +1 per 4 Mesmerist levels improves the "base" damage done when allies do damage which then also is added to bonus xd6 damage added when its the Mesmerist's attack.
2) the +1 per 4 Mesmerist levels improves the damage done by allies, but does not get added to the bonus xd6 damage. But the "base" damage done by allies is added to the xd6 damage when its the Mesmerist's attack.
3) the Painful Stare "base" damage is only applied to an allies attack, and is improved by Intense Pain as written. Then the Painful Stare damage changes from 1/2 Mesmerist level damage on an attack to 1d6 damage per three Mesmerist levels when applied to the Mesmerist's attack.
Options 1 and 3 seem relatively straight forward, while option 3 honestly seems far to convoluted to be true.
If option 1 is true it means that at Level 20 a Mesmerist would deal 9d6+10+5 damage with his Painful Stare, 46.5 on average which is just shy of 13d6. Even when considering that Rogues would be able to take Accomplished Sneak Attacker which would put them at 11d6 sneak attack damage this seems high to me. Especially when we then consider that Painful Stare mechanic is more easily achieved than sneak attack, being able to apply it at range with no extra feats required and a very strong argument that it can be applied to spells including Magic Missile.
Option 3 would mean that with Intense Pain Mesmerists would deal 9d6 damage on their own attacks putting them just shy of a Rogues sneak attack, but getting the advantage that their Painful Stare ability is easier achieve as a mechanic.
Sorry if that was confusing, but I hope some discerning GM's or Designers out there can decipher all that. I just want to make sure I understand how Painful Stare was intended to work.
Swarms are tough to do in miniature form, because they don't always take a square shape, and they are at their best when they are sharing a square with other creatures. That has resulted in many, many swarm figures looking more like bumpy coins than the creatures they're meant to represent. So we went with a more cinematic look for the army ant swarm, a common Medium figure, which is a 4-foot-tall mass of insects that have already stripped an earlier victim to the bone.
I know swarm mini appearance is always a hot topic, however I think you could in theory appease both sides of this topic.
Imagine this:
A large pile of ants crawling all over a skull. When this swarm engulfs a character, then you pick up the pile of ants and you are left with a base, with a flat-ish surface of ants which you can place a figure on top of.
This would be a 2-piece miniature. The removable top would just fit somewhat snug on top of the base. I know this would increase the cost slightly, however since swarms don't typically require a lot of paint steps, there shouldn't be much of a cost increase to paint it.
I've always been confused why they didn't make swarm miniatures on large bases where you could put medium sized minis on the corners, but have something like the Ant Swarm miniature here as the model in the middle with lots ants covering the rest of the base. You could even have some ants curving up around the edges to hold the medium miniatures inside the large base. I think this would give lots of opportunity for the artist to create a really interesting sculpture around where the miniatures would normally stand.
I'm trying to balance not spoiling the rest of Mark's reveal blogs with my sensitivity to your concerns regarding not wanting to buy in on the case when you don't know what's in it. So here's the list of the remaining figures and their sizes (I don't have access to their rarity or I would list that as well). I know that a list isn't the same as seeing the minis but hopefully this will give you enough to make your decision.
S- Fey Dragon
S- Jubilost Gnome Alchemist
S- Linzi, Halfling Bard
M- Army Ant Swarm
M- Dwoemercat
M- Stolen Lands Bandit
M- Giant Frog
M- River Kingdoms Ruffian
M- Shadow Rogue
M- Pitax Warden
M- Web Lurker
M- Monitor Lizard
M- Ekundayo, Human Ranger
M- Valerie, Human Fighter
M- Trollhound
M- Stag Lord
L- Ankou
L- Smilodon
L- Frost Giant Jarl
L- Ahuizotl
I'm trying to balance not spoiling the rest of Mark's reveal blogs with my sensitivity to your concerns regarding not wanting to buy in on the case when you don't know what's in it. So here's the list of the remaining figures and their sizes (I don't have access to their rarity or I would list that as well). I know that a list isn't the same as seeing the minis but hopefully this will give you enough to make your decision.
S- Fey Dragon
S- Jubilost Gnome Alchemist
S- Linzi, Halfling Bard
M- Army Ant Swarm
M- Dwoemercat
M- Stolen Lands Bandit
M- Giant Frog
M- River Kingdoms Ruffian
M- Shadow Rogue
M- Pitax Warden
M- Web Lurker
M- Monitor Lizard
M- Ekundayo, Human Ranger
M- Valerie, Human Fighter
M- Trollhound
M- Stag Lord
L- Ankou
L- Smilodon
L- Frost Giant Jarl
L- Ahuizotl
Thank you so much Jeff and Sara, this really is above and beyond! And honestly I'm more excited to see Mark's post. This list is full of stuff I want to see! Can't wait for his next blog post!
Steam is the games distribution platform owned by Valve that is arguably the largest PC games retailer on the market at the moment.
GOG stands for Good Old Games and is a similar only retailer/distributor for PC games in competition with Steam, but they are more well known for releasing DRM-Free (Digital Rights Management) versions of games.
No, it was not sarcasm. I don't play a lot of video games, so was unaware of these things.
Then I'm certainly glad to help. :)
The reason GOG exists and why DRM-free is appealing is because to play games on Steam you have to download Valves independent Steam Client, which is a separate program on your PC. This allows Valve to exert a certain amount of control over the games on their platform. This includes beneficial things like the Steam overlay that allows some interesting features and functions within games that would not exist otherwise (things like Achievements and messaging between Steam users). But some people don't like Valve having this much control, and in some cases this prevents users from modifying their experience as they see fit. GOG has a similar client I think, but all of their games can be downloaded and installed independently of any other program, allowing users more freedom to install, store, and modify their games as they see fit.
Steam is the games distribution platform owned by Valve that is arguably the largest PC games retailer on the market at the moment.
GOG stands for Good Old Games and is a similar only retailer/distributor for PC games in competition with Steam, but they are more well known for releasing DRM-Free (Digital Rights Management) versions of games.
Honestly I'm not sure. I think I'd be ok with at least a list. That would certainly show me that Paizo staff continue to care enough about customer concerns that they're willing to go out of their way to address them.
That said I really do love the previews and look forward to them. I've been considering canceling my subscription now that I have a pretty decent collection of miniatures going and just buying singles of things that I might need to save money, but honestly its the previews each time that make me think:
"Dang, most of these are looking really good. If I want this many (70% or more) I may as well keep the sub for one more case and get the value of the subscriber discount. Buying a 70% or more of a case as singles just isn't cost effective."
So I have been a bit disappointed by the lack of consistency with the preview lately. I hope that can be improved so that we can continue actually see the miniatures in the set before the order spawning.
While this game was not designed to be as rigidly turn-based as Divinity: Original Sin 1 & 2, you can actually enable a pretty close approximation since the game is entirely based around 6 second turns. In the settings there are two options you can enable in Pause options.
The first is "Pause at the end of each turn."
The second is "Pause after all allies actions."
Between these and the other available Pause options you can select everyone's actions, hit the space bar to unpause the game, watch what everyone does and then the game will pause to allow you to change characters actions.
Hope this helps get you closer to what you'd like.
It's still much harder to plan a turn, since everyone is moving and taking actions simultaneously. Getting AoE spells off correctly is a bit of a pain.
Sure, its still not as convenient as the rigid turn design, but hopefully it feels closer to the experience those who want turns might be looking for. Maybe this gives us a bit more insight into how challenging things are for our Table Top characters since all their actions also take place simultaneously.
how spoilery is this in terms of the last book of the AP? I had wanted to integrate that in my own homebrew.
As far as I've read this game takes EVERYTHING from the written Adventure Path and includes it in the story. Then it adds some additional things that Chris Avalon was apart of writing to expand the story into a 7th epilogue type chapter that takes characters all the way to lvl 20.
But yeah, I would expect the entire story written in the Adventure Path to be spoiled by the time someone finishes the game. I'm actually pretty excited to play it since I've never had the chance to play the AP nor do I really expect my gaming group to ever run it.
Oh, one more thing: Has anyone figured out how to use potions in the midst of combat? I put them in my belt, but I can't see them in the action menu.
So I thought this was actually a pretty elegant design choice by the developers. Just above your action bar there are three (two if your not a spell caster) artistic icons that might be mistaken as just decorative UI elements. But when clicked they expand out to show you different abilities the selected character can take. From left to right, these show your available spells, available class abilities, and items available to use on your belt.
So far I'm really liking this design much more than how Never Winter Nights or alot of the old school CRPG's did it.
So Linzi keeps charging face-first into the fray, and when I try to get her out of there, she gets an AoO... There seems to be no 5’-step or Retreat, which makes this really deadly. I’m glad I didn’t go with my original idea of Rogue/Paladin; the flanking would have been super tricky to set up.
Has anyone figured out a good routine yet that allows combat to start with squishies staying back and firing ranged attacks?
So a few things that might help. I haven't seen a 5' Step or Full Withdraw option yet, but there is an action in the Characters Ability list that allows you to make a Mobility movement to avoid attacks of opportunity. And if I'm not mistaken I believe Linzi actually has a pretty decent Mobility Skill just for this.
As for Sneak Attacks and flanking, I haven't had the chance yet to really test the system, but I've heard that Sneak Attacks are actually much easier to setup because the system does not enforce very strict positioning rules. In fact I've read from some of the Beta Testers that it seemed like as long as 1 or 2 allies were attacking a creature (without the table top flanking of being directly across from one another) that characters were even qualifying for Ranged Sneak Attacks.
As for your last question. I would recommend using the custom formation option which allows you MUCH more freedom to have your party members positioned as you'd like. Also I've noticed that as long as the character has a ranged weapon in hand they will not immediately run forward, but will instead start firing their ranged weapons. Finally there is also two small buttons to the right of the Party members portraits. The bottom one enables or disables AI actions for the selected character. So if you have this option disabled that party member will take NO actions that you do not specifically give it.
While this game was not designed to be as rigidly turn-based as Divinity: Original Sin 1 & 2, you can actually enable a pretty close approximation since the game is entirely based around 6 second turns. In the settings there are two options you can enable in Pause options.
The first is "Pause at the end of each turn."
The second is "Pause after all allies actions."
Between these and the other available Pause options you can select everyone's actions, hit the space bar to unpause the game, watch what everyone does and then the game will pause to allow you to change characters actions.
Hope this helps get you closer to what you'd like.
Is it stronger? Not until the eidolon gets the ability to become incorporeal (15th at the earliest) at which point 1d6 strength damage 1/round won't be a big deal. Assuming the summoner spends the 2 extra evolution points it's OK, but the basic version isn't worth getting IMO. Maybe if it costs 1 EP instead of 2 EP like the poison does. A save based off Cha and no lasting effect like the poison makes it strictly worse.
It may be that the player picks this on flavour of course whether or not it's a power boost.
Avr, thanks for the feedback. That's pretty much what I was hoping to hear. I had the same thought about the incorporeal aspect, that its very strong to get a touch attack with no save, but by that level it should be cool, but not so strong it trivializes combats.
I also agree that the initial effect the eidolon gets for 2 points is strictly worse than the Poison evolution. I honestly did this somewhat purposefully so nothing was taken away from the Poison evolution. For instance, if the 2 EP Shadow Attack had no save I can't really see why anyone would choose to try to build around the Poison evolution since you have to focus resources into increasing the DC of the save.
Changing the cost to 1 EP instead of 2 EP is an interesting idea that does feel appropriate. I was mostly just considering how this ability would be balanced with a full commitment to the evolution (ie. Spending 4 EP). In that context I suppose the question is should a 1d6 Stength damage per round, on a successful attack, with no save, cost a total of 3 EP or 4 EP.
Comparing it with the 4 EP Poison it feels to me like its strictly better since you go from 1d4 to 1d6 damage per round, and make the save essentially auto fail compared to just changing the damage type from Strength to Constitution. The main advantage I see with the Poison doing Con damage over Str is that for each failed save the next save will be more likely to fail (so arguably strictly worse), and the target will most likely be killed a bit faster than with Str damage since they're likely also taking damage from the eidolon's allies and con will also reduce their total Health Pool. But the 4 EP Shadow Attack goes straight to the opponent auto failing their save, and Str damage will make opponents less likely to hit, do less damage, and eventually not even be able to move. It also allows the eidolon to take living prisoners since bringing the Str score to 0 just makes them go unconscious. But this does feel a bit nit picky.
I think I feel comfortable enough with the ability to let my player try it out for at least one level and see how useful it is in practice, but I'm always looking for more feedback and different perspectives.
So I made a couple updates that I feel were fitting. Updates in bold.
Quote:
Shadow Attack (Su)
An eidolon's attack deals negative energy, draining the strength from its enemies. Pick one bite or claw attack. Whenever the selected attack hits, the target takes strength damage.
Eidolon Strength Damage (Su) - This is a Negative Energy effect (injury); save Will negates; effect 1d4 Str damage.
The save DC is equal to 10 + 1/2 the eidolon’s HD + the eidolon’s Charisma modifier.
For 2 additional evolution points, this attack deals 1d6 Strength damage instead and no longer has a save to negate the effect. This effect can be used no more than once per round. The summoner must be at least 7th level before selecting this evolution and have already selected the Shadow Form and Shadow Blend evolutions.
I also made the following notes as clarifications to how I understand various rules would interact with this ability.
Quote:
Shadow Attack Notes:
This attack deals Negative Energy, and thus will affect undead the same as any other Negative Energy effect.
This attack must deal damage for the ability damage to be applied, and thus according to the DR rules, this attack will not deal Strength damage if a creature's DR reduces its damage to 0.
Unless the Eidolon is also Incorporeal this attack is affected by all natural armor, armor, and shields as normal and does not bypass these bonuses to AC. If the Eidolon is Incorporeal treat this attack as an incorporeal touch attack that bypasses natural armor, armor, and shields.
So, ANY feedback would be appreciated. The questions I've been rolling around in my head are more or less the following:
Is this ability too strong for the Eidolon and the summoner class?
Is it just more convenience instead of power boost for the player, considering a Shadow Caller Summoner is able to summon an actual Shadow with the full blown no save strength damage touch attack at 1/minute per level, 8 times a day anyway.
Is it underpowered and not really worth the evolution points compared to other combat options a Summoner could take?
How does it compare to the original Poison evolution? Better? Worse? About the same with different pros and cons?
TL;DR: Would removing the save from the Poison evolution, but making it only last one round for 2 evolution points be too strong?
Long Version: I'm Running a game for a player who wants to make his Shadow Eidolon as close to a real shadow as possible. Almost everything to do this is pretty straight forward with Evolutions except the Shadow's touch attack.
First off, it does not appear that any evolutions make an Eidolon's attack a touch attack.
The touch attack deals Strength damage with seems easy enough to replicate with the Poison evolution, but the Shadow's touch attack has no save. So I'm thinking of modifying the Poison evolution to do what he'd like, but don't want to make it so broken I just cause problems for myself down the road. Here's what I'm thinking:
Quote:
Shadow Attack(Ex)
An eidolon's attack deals negative energy, draining the strength from its enemies. Pick one bite or claw attack. Whenever the selected attack hits, the target takes strength damage.
Eidolon Strength Damage (Su) - This is a Negative Energy effect (injury); save Will negates; effect 1d4 Str damage.
The save DC is equal to 10 + 1/2 the eidolon’s HD + the eidolon’s Constitution modifier.
For 2 additional evolution points, this attack deals 1d6 Strength damage instead and no longer has a save. This effect can be used no more than once per round. The summoner must be at least 7th level before selecting this evolution.
I have thought about making it a touch attack for an additional 2 evolution points, but thinking about it this just seems WAY to strong. The compromise I thought made sense was actually just clarifying the Incorporeal evolution so that while it is in effect all attacks do behave like touch attacks as it would for an Incorporeal creature.
It's not clear to me that the miniatures on the kickstarter are PFBattles figures (the size of the Jabberwock miniature is listed as 120mm, which seems like it's measuring height or something rather than the traditional medium/large/huge categorisation).
You are correct, it really wasn't clear if the two miniatures that were being offered are actually PFBattles miniatures. For reference the second miniature that was available as part of the Kickstarter was a Medium sized hero miniature that was advertised as being a companion from the game just like Regongar was presented in this article. This miniature is listed as 30mm in size and does come on a round base like the rest of the PFBattles miniatures. Based on that I would guess that the Jabberwock is most likely Huge sized or at the least an oversized large miniature.
Also, the image of the Jabberwock miniature is definitely the same image from the Bestiary, can't tell if its just that illustration or if its an actual render, but I was personally expecting that this may not be the final representation.
My guess is that its cross marketing to coincide with the release of the CRPG, which incidentally has a couple of Miniatures included if you pre-order or jumped in at the right level of the Kickstarter.
I'm super excited about the Jabberwock miniature personally. Jumped onto the Kickstarter just for that. When I saw that Kingmaker was the next Pathfinder Battles set I thought the Jabberwock might actually be included which fills me with somewhat mixed feelings consider I don't really need two.
So this was something I had been planning to buy for quite some time, but I got a bit of a surprise when I noticed that a few things that I thought were no longer in stock suddenly appeared on Paizo's webpage as available. Can you spot the mysterious and ever elusive unicorn? :)
Anyway, I wasn't planning to buy it all for another month, but when I saw what was available I just went ahead and ordered it all. A nice little late Christmas present for myself. Just got everything in this last weekend and got it all opened and wanted to share.
So this was something I had been planning to buy for quite some time, but I got a bit of a surprise when I noticed that a few things that I thought were no longer in stock suddenly appeared on Paizo's webpage as available. Can you spot the mysterious and ever elusive unicorn? :)
Anyway, I wasn't planning to buy it all for another month, but when I saw what was available I just went ahead and ordered it all. A nice little late Christmas present for myself. Just got everything in this last weekend and got it all opened and wanted to share.
I don't recall having that many issues with my case of Shattered Star. And since the start, I've only ever had one sealed case not deliver a full set (my Rise of the Runelords case had an empty slot that should have had one of the rares).
Thanks! Yeah, I've always been a fan of miniatures, but I was too young to have the money for the old D&D miniatures game. Started out getting the most inexpensive things I could. Bought all the Dungeon Command sets (which I was quite sad to see discontinued). Then got all the D&D Adventure games.
Once I exhausted these options I finally broke down and subscribed for a case of Crimson Throne (great timing on Paizo's part since my gaming group decided to start Crimson Throne with the release of the Anniversary Edition). Then I just kept the subscription for Maze of Death after seeing how many minis I could use in my campaign and how awesome the rest in the set were.
So now I'm looking around at other sets to see what would give me the most usable (in either my current campaign or are just very commonly seen in modules) miniatures for the money spent.
Kalindlara wrote:
If you're making the leap into minis, you could do far worse. ^_^
I was definitely feeling the same way looking through what Shattered Star has to offer. Kalindlara, in your opinion how would you rank the existing sets in terms of building a very usable collection?
if it is advertised as Case a sealed case is what you should get.
Thanks, that's what I was hoping.
Joana wrote:
This thread will show you what people were getting in their Shattered Star cases when they were first shipped and what condition the minis arrived in.
Awesome, appreciate the link. So I'm getting the impression that there may have been a slightly above average amount of breakage with the Shattered Star set (guess they really wanted to get that "Shattered" theme down :p), but it really does have so many of the things I'm missing and I know I can use. Will have to consider this.
So I noticed that Paizo still has Booster Cases available for some of their older Pathfinder Battles products. I've been looking through the sets to see if any have a good number of creatures I don't have, and am really considering buying a case of Shattered Star.
Does anyone have any experience buying older sets like this? I'd like to know:
-Did you still get a complete set from a case? Was the case still factory wrapped as a case, or just four separate bricks?
-Any issues with higher than normal breakage in a case?
-Did you have any other problems/delays with your order?
I'd also be very interested to know others opinions on what are the best older Pathfinder Battles sets to buy for someone just starting out buying miniatures for regular Pathfinder games?
So I noticed that Paizo still has Booster Cases available for some of their older Pathfinder Battles products. I've been looking through the sets to see if any have a good number of creatures I don't have, and am really considering buying a case of Shattered Star.
Does anyone have any experience buying older sets like this? I'd like to know:
-Did you still get a complete set from a case? Was the case still factory wrapped as a case, or just four separate bricks?
-Any issues with higher than normal breakage in a case?
-Did you have any other problems/delays with your order?
I'd also be very interested to know others opinions on what are the best older Pathfinder Battles sets to buy for someone just starting out buying miniatures for regular Pathfinder games?
I believe in the curse of the crimson throne AP, the players fight vampire spawn and it says that they turn to gas and head to their nearby coffins, which seems to indicate they get that when they reach 0 HP.
What's really funny is that this is the exact encounter I'm preparing that prompted me to ask this question. But I have the newer Anniversary Edition and I it apparently omits that detail regarding the Vampire Spawn.
This is actually one of the reasons I wanted ask. Compared to Wights a Vampire Spawn seems like it would be much stronger with the stricter rules about destruction that Vampires posses. I could have seen it going either way.
The issue here is that the rules lists the vampire's 0 hp effects under defensive abilities, after Fast Healing 5. This is actually part of the description of the vampire's fast healing ability.
The vampire spawn receives fast healing 2. Its weaknesses are the same as a vampire's weaknesses, and the weaknesses section references the fast healing section "(See fast healing.)"
Quote:
Reducing a vampire's hit points to 0 or lower incapacitates it but doesn't always destroy it (see fast healing).
The fast healing description should be considered to include all the text below:
Quote:
A vampire also gains fast healing 5. If reduced to 0 hit points in combat, a vampire assumes gaseous form (see below) and attempts to escape. It must reach its coffin home within 2 hours or be utterly destroyed. (It can normally travel up to 9 miles in 2 hours.) Additional damage dealt to a vampire forced into gaseous form has no effect. Once at rest, the vampire is helpless. It regains 1 hit point after 1 hour, then is no longer helpless and resumes healing at the rate of 5 hit points per round.
The only difference, then, is that the vampire spawn receives fast healing 2 instead of fast healing 5. The details of the vampire spawn and vampire fast healing functionality are the same, as the vampire weaknesses reference the fast healing section.
This was actually a bit more clear in 3.5e when Fast Healing was its own entry under the vampire and vampire spawn creatures in the Monster Manual. The functionality has not changed, but fast healing was grouped under Defensive Abilities instead of its own Fast Healing listing.
It's just a layout change that makes it less clear.
Ok, so if I'm understanding you correctly the Vampire Spawn should have the same "If reduced to 0 hit points in combat, a vampire assumes gaseous form (see below) and attempts to escape" text, just with a Fast Healing of 2 instead of 5 in their normal form.
That does make sense, wish the text was more clear either way.
2, 3, 4, 5) Undead can't go into negative hit points. They are destroyed at 0 hit points. Normal vampires have an exception (turning gaseous at 0 hit points) but it isn't clear if the same applies to spawn.
Both undead and constructs are destroyed at 0 hit points. It is a function of their creature type.
Quote:
Not at risk of death from massive damage, but is immediately destroyed when reduced to 0 hit points.
Thanks that is also very helpful! I'm just trying to reconcile the following section of the Vampire Weaknesses (which the text explicitly states Vampire Spawn do receive) indicating that like the full Vampire the Vampire Spawn are not always destroyed when brought to 0 hit points, except when the specific conditions listed are met of course.
Weaknesses wrote:
Reducing a vampire's hit points to 0 or lower incapacitates it but doesn't always destroy it (see fast healing). However, certain attacks can slay vampires. Exposing any vampire to direct sunlight staggers it on the first round of exposure and destroys it utterly on the second consecutive round of exposure if it does not escape. Each round of immersion in running water inflicts damage on a vampire equal to one-third of its maximum hit points—a vampire reduced to 0 hit points in this manner is destroyed. Driving a wooden stake through a helpless vampire's heart instantly slays it (this is a full-round action). However, it returns to life if the stake is removed, unless the head is also severed and anointed with holy water.
You are misunderstanding Fast Healing. It stops immediately when the creature reaches negative Con HP and dies. The thing that stays on and brings the creature back no matter how negative it goes is Regeneration.
Dunno about the rest.
Ahh, ok. That is an important distinction I was not aware of. Thank you! *Goes to read Regeneration rules*
So I guess my post was a bit to disorganized. I'll summarize my questions better.
1. When a Vampire Spawn goes to 0 HP does it become Gaseous like an actual Vampire or does it just become disabled like most creatures?
2. If it does not become Gaseous at 0 HP does additional damage take it into Negative Hitpoints?
3. If its HP does go below 0, how many Negative Hitpoints would it take since it doesn't have a Constitution score? Possibly its Charisma score?
4. If there is a limit to the number of Negative Hitpoints it can have does a Vampire Spawn die once it reaches this limit or does it just stay at that number of Negative Hitpoints while its Fast Healing takes affect?
5. If there is no limit to the number of Negative Hitpoints it can receive would it simply never die no matter how many Negative Hitpoints its received, and would it then just slowly heal from its Fast Healing until its once again conscious?
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
I can't find the entry at the moment, but yes you do not have to be the caster of the spell yourself. A buddy can cast it for you when you make your Spellcraft check to meet the requirement.
Double Movement Cost: When your movement is hampered in some way, your movement usually costs double. For example, each square of movement through difficult terrain counts as 2 squares, and each diagonal move through such terrain counts as 3 squares (just as two diagonal moves normally do).
If movement cost is doubled twice, then each square counts as 4 squares (or as 6 squares if moving diagonally). If movement cost is doubled three times, then each square counts as 8 squares (12 if diagonal) and so on. This is an exception to the general rule that two doublings are equivalent to a tripling.
Of course, "speed cut in half" is not quite the same thing as "movement costs double," but you could consider it a precedent.
I would agree, this looks like exactly what I was looking for as long as there is not something more specific that overrules this. Thanks again.
Perfect Tommy is referring to the rule that x2 x2 = x3, that is, two doublings is a tripling. But I do not believe that it applies to division.
AFAIK, your human is at 7.5' movement. This isn't quite the same as 5' since (a) you can go 15' with a double move, and (b) you can still take a 5' step, which you can't do if your move really is <= 5'.
Ok, thanks! I'm not familiar with the two doublings is a tripling rule. My curiosity is piqued though.
And if the rounding rule doesn't apply I can see the speed coming out to 7.5ft. Especially with your point regarding a double move. I'd imagine a single move at that speed would still always be just a 5ft square since you can't divide the movement any lower.
But as to my original question, does anyone know of any rules or FAQs that address the two slowing effects stacking?
So let me get this straight. Ten dogs are lined up side by side. You make your knowledge check to know that the first dog is a dog. You then need to repeat this nine more times to realize that all the animals in front of you are dogs?
You want to go and buy a horse. You have to make a knowledge check to even know that what you are buying is a horse?
You know how to speak human, elven, and orcish, but you may not even know what a human, elf, or orc is?
These are the consequence of requiring a knowledge check for just identifying type (not strengths, weaknesses, and other useful info) of a creature?
I would would say that yes, this is technically correct. BUT... what isn't being factored into your assertion is that it is ultimately up to the GM to decide the DCs for all your examples. Even necessary to identify the MANY MANY common things not in the Beastieries.
That Horse your trying to buy? I'd say DC 3 Nature or Local. You decide to roll, have no bonuses and not Int bonus, then sure, you might mistake it for a Donkey.
Those ten dogs? I'll set that DC at 5, but you'll get a +2 bonus since your from the area on the first one. Then, since you recognized the first I'll give you another +2 bonus to identify the next since it looks so similar to the first, and then the next,and next.
Also, taking 10 is a rule designed to help make this process just background noise in all but the most unusual cases.
The skill system is just the framework to adjudicate how to do the things, but common things are not likely to be a problem because it's a system with the flexibility to let the GM decide what will be easy or difficult for PCs to identify.
So I'm (sorta) familiar with the rules for Vampires and know that unless you use...
one of the 4 methods:
- Keep him from getting to his coffin in gaseous form
- Stake to the heart + beheading + blessing the head
- 3 rounds under running water
- 2 rounds in direct sunlight
...then they are pretty much immune to death. But it is very specific in the Defensive Abilities entry that once a vampire hits 0 HP it becomes Gaseous and is immune to further damage.
Defensive Abilities:
A vampire gains channel resistance +4, DR 10/magic and silver, and resistance to cold 10 and electricity 10, in addition to all of the defensive abilities granted by the undead type. A vampire also gains fast healing 5. If reduced to 0 hit points in combat, a vampire assumes gaseous form (see below) and attempts to escape. It must reach its coffin home within 2 hours or be utterly destroyed. (It can normally travel up to 9 miles in 2 hours.) Additional damage dealt to a vampire forced into gaseous form has no effect. Once at rest, the vampire is helpless. It regains 1 hit point after 1 hour, then is no longer helpless and resumes healing at the rate of 5 hit points per round.
Weaknesses:
Vampires cannot tolerate the strong odor of garlic and will not enter an area laced with it. Similarly, they recoil from mirrors or strongly presented holy symbols. These things don't harm the vampire—they merely keep it at bay. A recoiling vampire must stay at least 5 feet away from the mirror or holy symbol and cannot touch or make melee attacks against that creature. Holding a vampire at bay takes a standard action. After 1 round, a vampire can overcome its revulsion of the object and function normally each round it makes a DC 25 Will save.
Vampires cannot enter a private home or dwelling unless invited in by someone with the authority to do so.
Reducing a vampire's hit points to 0 or lower incapacitates it but doesn't always destroy it (see fast healing). However, certain attacks can slay vampires. Exposing any vampire to direct sunlight staggers it on the first round of exposure and destroys it utterly on the second consecutive round of exposure if it does not escape. Each round of immersion in running water inflicts damage on a vampire equal to one-third of its maximum hit points—a vampire reduced to 0 hit points in this manner is destroyed. Driving a wooden stake through a helpless vampire's heart instantly slays it (this is a full-round action). However, it returns to life if the stake is removed, unless the head is also severed and anointed with holy water.
But what about Vampire Spawn? From what I can tell they do not get the Defensive Abilities entry of Vampires, just the Weaknesses (which also indicate they are pretty much immune to death). So if a Vampire Spawn hits 0 HP would it become Gaseous? And if not, does additional damage take it into Negative Hitpoints? How many Negative Hitpoints could it take since it doesn't have a Constitution score? Would it just continually heal until its HP is back to 0 or higher, even after millions of points of damage, and then just wake back up?
Also, does Silver stop its Fast Healing? Would this allow the it do die similar to how one would kill a Troll with fire? (or am I misunderstanding something about Fast Healing?)
And I'm sure someone will mention it, I do agree that once its unconscious taking its head off and blessing it would destroy it, but I'd like to figure out what happens if a group of adventurers didn't know this and just beat it into a puddle of goo.
So after preparing for an encounter that includes both Tanglefoot Bags and Caltops I realized that the speed reductions for both of these items do not have any specific type and could arguably be due to different sources. One entangling your legs with the other impairing your feet.
So the question is, do these two speed reductions stack? For example:
A human with a move speed of 30 ft. steps on some Caltrops which successfully injury him, reducing his movement speed reduced to 15 ft.
Then someone hits him with a tanglefoot bag, and on a successful Reflax save becomes entangled reducing his speed by half of his now 15 ft. movement speed to 7 ft., which would then be rounded down to 5 ft. following the rounding rules.
Tanglefoot Bag:
A tanglefoot bag is a small sack filled with tar, resin, and other sticky substances. When you throw a tanglefoot bag at a creature (as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet), the bag comes apart and goo bursts out, entangling the target and then becoming tough and resilient upon exposure to air. An entangled creature takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity and must make a DC 15 Reflex save or be glued to the floor, unable to move. Even on a successful save, it can move only at half speed. Huge or larger creatures are unaffected by a tanglefoot bag. A flying creature is not stuck to the floor, but it must make a DC 15 Reflex save or be unable to fly (assuming it uses its wings to fly) and fall to the ground. A tanglefoot bag does not function underwater.
Caltrops:
A caltrop is a four-pronged metal spike crafted so that one prong faces up no matter how the caltrop comes to rest. You scatter caltrops on the ground in the hope that your enemies step on them or are at least forced to slow down to avoid them. One 2-pound bag of caltrops covers an area 5 feet square.
Each time a creature moves into an area covered by caltrops (or spends a round fighting while standing in such an area), it runs the risk of stepping on one. Make an attack roll for the caltrops (base attack bonus +0) against the creature. For this attack, the creature's shield, armor, and deflection bonuses do not count. If the creature is wearing shoes or other footwear, it gets a +2 armor bonus to AC. If the attack succeeds, the creature has stepped on a caltrop. The caltrop deals 1 point of damage, and the creature's speed is reduced by half because its foot is wounded. This movement penalty lasts for 24 hours, until the creature is successfully treated with a DC 15 Heal check, or until it receives at least 1 point of magical healing. A charging or running creature must immediately stop if it steps on a caltrop. Any creature moving at half speed or slower can pick its way through a bed of caltrops with no trouble.
Caltrops may not work against unusual opponents.
I could also see where a character affected by multiple speed reducing effects only applies the single worst effect similar to how non-stacking bonuses work, but I haven't found anything that specifies this from a source in a book or on the forums.
I do something similar to ckdragons. When the PC's encounter something they have to roll the their knowledge check vs the DC as described in skill. This allows them to identify what the creature is. I also throw in one of sections in the creatures Stat Block (Defense, Offense, Statistics etc.), I let my players choose which section. Then for every 5 over the Base DC they can roll I allow them to choose an additional section.
Now that being said I also do just read it out as written. I try to jazz it up with some Tolkin'esc description as if they were remembering something they read from some old tome or folklore, so they still have to kinda guess the mechanics (though I try to make it pretty easy or obvious, especially if they have encountered something similar in their characters past).
