The Ronyon's page

I'm not sure Familiars need to be at risk.
Magic items contribute in combat ,but we don't target them with area attacks.

I'm at the age of losing my parents as well.
My father is slipping away into Alzheimer's, my mother is fatigued from caring for/losing him.
Thank you for sharing your stories here.
It's good to see each other as humans, even as we pretend to be other things.

Bluemagetim wrote:

What would another con based class look like?

A 'Vitalist' that manipulates life-force to damage others (by draining their life force), heals allies (by infusing them with their own life force), buffs allies (more vitality!), debuffs foes (fatigue, etc.) and enhances themselves (burn that excess vitality for Rage like benefits) could be interesting.

Somewhat more adjacent abilities could allow them to manipulate people's or animals feelings (depress or energize them), or cause plants to grow or wither, or food to decay or freshen. A bit of 'psychic vampire' on the side, perhaps, able to bring down a room, or get a crowd pumped.

This is a Necromancer, or at least it's almost exactly the necromancer I played in a Mutants and Master mind game.

Claxon wrote:

The Ronyon wrote:

I only know them from class related game material,but to me , Hellknights are just the Church of Policing.

If you expect a bunch of fanatical cops to not be corrupted by power,run them that way.

To me, the controlling nature of most policing and most religion makes a holy order of knights that emulate the lawfulness of hell becoming outright evil after countless millennia seem surprising only in that it took that long for them to fall only this far.

Falling to evil, or even most orders being evil, isn't that surprising.

But becoming servitors of Hell is frustrating, because Hellkngihts weren't Hell's lackeys before this new publication. Honestly, to me it makes Hellknights worthless if they're just aligned with Hell and serving those ends as mortals rather than devils.

Exactly, hence my mixed feelings.

Generally not a fan of classes and archetypes where the lore of the game kind of soft-locks you into either being a villain or so self-righteous/deluded you don't realize you are one (a la my recent thread over in the Lost Omens Campaign Setting board about necromancers).

Hmm,perhaps the explicitness of their fall does take something away from their allure.

I only know them from class related game material,but to me , Hellknights are just the Church of Policing.
If you expect a bunch of fanatical cops to not be corrupted by power,run them that way.

To me, the controlling nature of most policing and most religion makes a holy order of knights that emulate the lawfulness of hell becoming outright evil after countless millennia seem surprising only in that it took that long for them to fall only this far.

I think a companion that is durable or can hit effectively or that has an effective special effect is the minimum that's need to make them fun for the player.
They don't need have all three, or even two, but right now I don't think we can count on even one of these things from our Companions.
Well not from levels 1-20.

There is a legitimate concern that a player character with an extra body is unfair to to everyone else.

Why not have the PC pay for everything out of their own resources?
Actions, and feats, assigned strait to the Companion.
Maybe even hit points!
To me, the customization this would facilitate is more important than getting extra actions.

I suggested this during the Summoner playtest, well the feats anyway.

Magic items should already be available to Companions without special restriction for the same reason, if you are spending magic item resources on them, you aren't spending them elsewhere.

My personal favorite type necromancer is the guy who just talks to dead people and has ghost buddies/pets.
Like Luke Skywalker

The nature of the Necromancer Class is closer to being a necro-kinetic than a character that has an actual relationship with dead beings.

Those examples were given for examples of acceptable flavor.

What I would like is a medium sized armored humanoid combatant with a Whip and a Tower Shield who can put down the weapons and do basic tasks,and is also not a person.
It could be undead,a plant,a magical animal, a machine,or something else I the player wouldn't feel bad about sacrificing.

Familiars or Eidolons do not meet my requirements.
Neither do Companions, but I make do.
If Followers meet my requirements in full or in part,great.
If not, oh well.

It's been a while since I looked at Companions but I recall being underwhelmed.

I'm hoping a Sheildbearer will be the guardian I want and I can add the undead flavor via Leader for All.

I'm not opposed to other flavors of minions, I just want them to be better guardians than Companions tend to be.

A Groot, Armored Bear or Big Hero 6 style partner are what Id hope to get.

So the Leader for All feat would let the Follower be Undead, but they are human until you can get that feat?

What if you took the Undead Master Dedication at level 2 and retrained it to Captain at level 4?
That way you could have an undead servant from the begining, and gaining the Follower Type (like Shieldbearer) would be an evolution in capabilities, not a switch in Ancestry.

Of course starting with a human servant and turning them into an undead servant has its own appeal.

Unless I'm mistaken,Undead Companions like the Zombi cannot wear Armor,use a Shield or wield weapons.
I sure hope the Shieldbearer can do those things.

Hmm.
I've been wanting a single,powerful, heavily armored Undead Humanoid with a Tower Shield to hide a caster character behind.

What ancestries are there to pick from?
Like is there an Undead Ancestry?
Or does steer away from the previous Companion types?

I notice there isn't a spellcaster of any kind, probably for balance reasons.
The limit on the gear would be for similar reasons.

I've heard a smidge, it seems like a great thing for people who like "pets".

Lol, I was think of the "counting coup" tradition, but yeah, if we are all about frustration and drawing aggro, kiting would be fun.
It adds to the conundrum for the enemy, but does it work?
It doesn't seem like it.
The Reaction feats I've seen give melee attacks, not ranged.
The intercepting requires you to be close by.
Taunting Strike might work with ranged weapons, which would make it very useful.
Could one use it with a Bomb?

So what does a Commander Archetype get?

So could Taunt and the reactions tied to it work for a mounted character?
What about a ranged character?
Could you ride into Taunting range, taunt, then ride away?

A mount can save you actions, so any of the Archetypes that get you a ridable pet could be decent.
I wonder if there is one that gets you a focus point AND a rideable pet with the dedication.
I'm partial to the Goat because of the climb speed.

The Psychic choice that could work well with the thralls is Infinite Eye and their Amped Guidance and later Glimpse Weakness.
Tangible Dream for Amped Shield feels especially useful to increase your own survival.

A sack full of snakes keeps better and is more compact.
They can go longer without food/water and Consume Flesh needs fresh corpses.
Oil of unlife?
Poison for your claws?
Oh, a pick and a shovel!
Traps for small animals?

kwodo wrote:

Invictus Fatum wrote:

Here's a thought. Perhaps thralls differ based on the type summoned and thus feel more mechanically useful and varied.

When you create thrall you get the initial choice of:

Skeleton - attacks when summoned
Flesh - attempts to grab when summoned
Ghost - attempts to intimidate when summoned

All would use your SA modifier and all would then be treated exactly the same after the initial roll. All of these things are things any PC can do from lvl 1 so I don't see it as OP, but it would make for some cool variety and make my thralls feel special.

If thos is too strong by some accounts, perhaps that is based on the initial Grim Facination you choose and then there are level 1 feats you can get to add the other choices.

with those I can see an issue with Ghost not interacting with MAP like the other two and, if using Demoralize rules, each creature targeted would then be immune for 10 mins

I dont see it not interacting with MAP as a problem as Demoralize is a legit 1 action tactics you or anybody can do anyway. Frankly I see it as action compression like so many other actions various classes get (thrall plus demoralize).

As to being immune for 10 minutes, that's an issue, but can be approached a few ways. If you rule it is the thrall (not Necromancer) making the Demoralize attempt, then a new thrall could do it just fine. This may be a bit too powerful though. If you rule it is the Necromancer making the Demoralize, then they would be immune, though it is similar to the Braggart Swashbucker and their Intimidation to gain Panache.

Maybe making the Necromancer a little OP via this "new Thrall, no immunity" Demoralize would be a good thing?

If ghosts have this Demoralize action and we give skeletons a ranged attack instead of their weak reflex save, then only flesh thralls would need to close with their target to make an impact on gameplay.

I usually create a hidden village or a quietly practicing family for my morally different characters to come from.

The idea that some individuals have knack for certain magic,or are born into the practice is a simple place to start.
No need for crazed dedication, it's just comes easy to you, or it's just a way of life.

In RL, "alternative" beliefs exist invisibly all around us.
If you know your practices would be hated and looked down upon, you are liable to hide them, but you might never give them up, especially if they give you actual power.

The more obscure your practices, the easier it is to mask them.
In a world like Golarion, there are "acceptable" ways to summon undead, so Create Thrall should hardly make a ripple.

I do wish life sense was basic to the class starting from level 1.
If you can sée the energies at work, all the more reason you would pursue an interest in them.

"When you cast the spell, you can have up to one thrall created by this spell make a melee unarmed Strike using your spell attack modifier for the attack roll."
It says one thrall created by this spell, not one thrall created by this casting of the spell.

I think any of the Thralls created from any casting of Create Thrall can be the Thrall that "you can have up to one thrall make a melee unarmed Strike"

As it reads right now I think any necromancer casting Create Thrall could affect any Thrall created by the spell, even if that spell originated from another character entirely.

I would like to see it grant Martial Weapon Proficiency.

The Ronyon wrote:

I'm better off grabbing the old Nobel background and flavoring the retainers as undead servants.

Incidentally, there are no retainers that I know of in the game. You might be thinking of a different game but I don't know of any way to get retainers other than picking up some hirelings for between 1 and 5 silver per day, or possibly reflavouring an eidolon or non-animal companion...

Yeah, I keep doing this.

It's the idea that they are an extension that makes the idea that they can Interact but they can't make me more effect in mundane tasks, that much more annoying.
As soon as you give me 3 sets of manipulative limbs and tell me they can move X weight Y far, you are multiplying what I can reasonably get done.

Phantasmal Minions "can move and use Interact actions to do things such as fetch objects"
That's about what any apprentice in any trade starts out doing.
Add tireless, unpaid and obedient to your will and you can really get things done.

I love me some Minions, but I'm actually not in favor of giving Thralls the ability to perform ANY Interaction.
In my opinion,Phantasmal Minions and Telekinetic Hand cover the fantasy just fine and they come with a price that makes flooding the dungeon, battlefield or cornfield with them cost prohibitive.

What if we give Create Thrall the ability to "stick" Thralls to other creatures.
The target would make a Reflex, Fortitude or Will save against the Necromancer class DC.

If they critically fail the Thrall goes with them wherever they go,and is considered to be flanking the target,until it is destroyed or the target Escapes.

If the target fails they are flanked by the created Thrall and it goes where they go,till the begining of the Necromancers next turn unless it is destroyed or the target Escapes before then.

If the target succeeds they are flanked by the created Thrall and it goes where they go, for the rest of that turn,unless it is destroyed or the target Escapes before then.

If the target critically succeeds, no Thrall appears.

This gives a way to attack flying and swimming targets, and it lets PCs carry Thralls with them for offensive and defensive purposes.

If this were to be adopted, the Thralls should probably be weightless and share a space with the target.

It could be restricted only to Will saves and flavored as spirits.

Just another idea on how to make the Necromancer/Thrall relationship fun and simple.

Vomit forth ectoplasm?

Cough up an owl pellet?

Open a vein, or your entrails?

They step from behind, from that corner of the eye that sees things creeping up from behind,late at night,when you should be safe at home in bed, instead of out roaming the darkness...

Another solution to explain floating undead-piles of bodies.
Imagine a colum of flesh, bones or ectoplasm, extending from the necromancers square.
Kinda Tokyo Ghoul style.

These fountains of necrotic force would hold the Thrall in place.
They can't be attacked anymore than most spell effects, and the disappear when the Thrall does.

No mechanic, just another way to picture Thralls in the air.

Well, they already have better than average Focus point recovery.
I would love a "souls for spell slots" mechanic.
Make Life Tap a class feature, let it cost only one action, and have it grant a spell slot.
Maybe a maximum level slot, for all the hassle involved.

Obviously this would need some limits, but if these were the only slots available, the limits could be very liberal.

Another way to make a Necromancer with magical abilities but without spell slots would be a Focus spell that allows access to Summoning spells, and let's the summoned creatures use all of their Spells.

Giving the Necromancer way to trade Focus points/sacrifices to complete Rituals or to create magic items could also give them magic, without spell slots.

Narratively, skeleton archers and flying spirits address this issue.
Zombies could do a dead man's float...

Game mechanics wise,giving out ranged attacks and flight to Thralls gets more and more complicated.
What if Thralls created in the water, or on land, stayed where you put them, while thralls created in the air stayed where you put them until the end of your turn,then went poof?

Alternatively,we could decide that all Thralls stay where you created them,so feel free describe your Thralls as you wish to fit your needs.
Zombies for floating in water or spirits for floating in the air, skeletons for whatever.

I think it should target Will saves.
It's already associated with spiritual stuff, and we already have focus spells targeting Fortitude and AC.

I had presumed that most focus spells in the game cost two actions, but I think I was wrong.
Regardless,what if it were a single action spell?

What if it could grant a spell slot instead of healing?
Since it costs a Focus point, there is a natural limit built in.
It would be a very flavorful way to increase Necromancer spell casting.

I think the action granted from casting of Create Thrall should be usable with any Thrall that you the caster has created.
It's one of the weakest uses of Thralls anyway.

I'm presuming Summoners get flight for their Eidolons at some point?

The extra action is free movement, and that seems very worthwhile.

What about allowing ANY undead you control to count as a Thrall for purposes of spells and class abilities?
Mostly you wouldn't want to sacrifice Summons,Familiars,Companions or some of the creatures created in Rituals, but being able to use the Thrall basic attack would be nice, especially on the Familiar.

Allowing non-Thrall Undead to be used for necromancer focus spells without being destroyed would be an exciting reward for investing in them.

Ectar wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

Ectar wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

There's also Carryall, though you'll have to wait until 9th level to do it. Good news is you'll be able to carry around I think two or three thralls on it? Just stack 'em up!

No go. Thralls are undead creatures

Which is why I said you need to wait until 9th level. Then you can cast it as a 4th-rank spell, which can carry creatures.

Neat. I didn't realize that spell got changed in the remaster. Cool!

It also scales up to carrying double what it did previously; I'm real glad for the buff. It looks like a fun spell for a high-level caster to flex with now, and I have always been a fan of those spells that let you do fairly mundane stuff, just more magically.

Do you know any magic items that cast this spell?

So is the early Summoner in the same boat?

The Ronyon wrote:

n8_fi wrote:

*snip*

With Thralls like this, I'm never walking anywhere, my butt will rarely leave my palanquin.

They will be bringing my a dinning room table with me most places, so my party can take cover behind it.
They will dig tunnels, deliver explosives/accelerants and set them off,break down walls,strip dungeons of treasure,gather wood for bonfires,drop stones on my enemies, redirect rivers,etc.

Their bodies won't need to become difficult terrain , they will bring the piles of junk with them.
Seriously, just tarps filled with whatever we loot from the dungeon (which will be everything) dropped when they are destroyed, should be plenty to clog up the battle field.

These are the kind of things I think of when you give me access to disposable servants
Fun for me, but could be a problem for the table.

Except very little of the above would be possible considering I've only been discussing Interacts and Strides as part of a grave cantrip (or other single-action effect).

- Your thralls could carry your palanquin or your table, but that would have to be your one chosen exploration activity (Repeat a Spell), and may even cause fatigue at GM discretion. Plus, even this might require some GM allowance as Repeat a Spell is supposed to allow a single spell, so you 1-minute duration thralls wouldn't last long enough to be controlled continuously.
- Digging tunnels essentially always requires an Athletics check, so would not be covered by "Interact action not requiring a check." Plus, you would still have to be within 30' of a thrall to control it using the stuff in this thread, which seems a reasonable limit against the remote explosives shenanigans.
- Massive projects like reshaping rivers fall under a similar category to digging, but even so you're essentially just talking about a couple free unskilled, severely limited hirelings. That's not that crazy.
- No matter how much "junk" a Small or Medium creature is carrying, it is...

Well I guess it's my turn to be let down in the fulfillment of class fantasy department.

The idea that I could create and control multiple beings that move up to 10 bulk but that wouldn't significantly affect what I could accomplish, is immersion breaking.
The idea that the body of a Small sized Thrall could create a square of Difficult Terrain, but the 10 bulk of its carrying has no effect makes zero sense.

So if "Interact action not requiring a check" does not at least have include carrying a palanquin in exploration mode,digging holes in exploration mode,or junking up the terrain, then it's not a problem, but it's also not impactful.
I'm better off grabbing the old Nobel background and flavoring the retainers as undead servants.

What impactful thing CAN "Interact action not requiring a check" do?

The Ronyon wrote:

Create Thrall plus Reach of the Dead let's you put one Thrall at 30 feet, the next at 60 and one more at 90.

Your Focus spells also add to your effective range.
Dead Weigh should be very effective against flyers.

Putting something far away on the ground isn't the problem- putting it high up is the issue. In your example, Create Thrall would create one thirty feet in the air, and it would plummet to the ground and be destroyed. Your second action wouldn't benefit from Reach of the Dead.

Dead Weight can only target a creature within fifteen feet of a thrall, so any creature flying 20 feet up (pretty normal for flight) will be out of reach.

Good points.

What simple weapon has the longest range?

Now I want my thralls to resemble angelic infants.
That way, when I throw one at a normal, decent person, they have to drop everything in an attempt to catch it!

Hmm, are they immune to poison?
Feeding Thralls to monsters might be feasible.
Alchemist/Necromancer?

The Ronyon wrote:

Some focus spells allow you to move Thralls.

The fact that they are focus spells limits how much that happens.
I'm fine with moving 3 Thralls a turn, but that is more than most of the focus spells do.

The idea is that don't allow to move more thralls than you are currently able to create to avoid slowdown the things morte than the Create Thrall would.

So maxing out at 4 an Action, 12 a turn?

Create Thrall plus Reach of the Dead let's you put one Thrall at 30 feet, the next at 60 and one more at 90.
Your Focus spells also add to your effective range.
Dead Weigh should be very effective against flyers.

I'm imagining a Thrall held and used like shield.
Familiars,Mage hand, unseen servants, animal companions, all potential Thrall caddies.

I don’t think I’m understanding people’s issues with Interact actions. Thralls start from a position of “can’t act unless the Necromancer’s effect specifically tells them what to do.” Being able to Interact through a control spell lets them hold and carry items, sure, but it doesn’t let them make attacks with weapons. They also still couldn’t Activate Magic or alchemical items even with only Interact components (Activate is its own activity with Interact as a subordinate action); these are also actions which generally make sense to be too complicated for a thrall to perform. If there are other things people are concerned about, I’m pretty confident that viewing the thralls from this direction of granted actions would assuage the concern.

The only thing I can think that this actually requires in rules text is stating the Bulk limits of thralls; based on being level -1 creatures with no stats, it would be easy to just say encumbered 5, max 10.

With Thralls like this, I'm never walking anywhere, my butt will rarely leave my palanquin.

Their bodies won't need to become difficult terrain , they will bring the piles of junk with them.
Seriously, just tarps filled with whatever we loot from the dungeon (which will be everything) dropped when they are destroyed, should be plenty to clog up the battle field.

These are the kind of things I think of when you give me access to disposable servants
Fun for me, but could be a problem for the table.

Some focus spells allow you to move Thralls.
The fact that they are focus spells limits how much that happens.
I'm fine with moving 3 Thralls a turn, but that is more than most of the focus spells do.

I think I like the weak, non-moving Thralls because they open things up for large numbers.
Maybe a Troop or Swarm would be a better way to represent this?

Do Thralls go poof or melt away when they are destroyed?
Or do they leave behind bodies?
"they are not minions with the summoned trait."
That sentence suggests they would leave behind bodies.

"Thrall Enhancement You can still make use of a destroyed thrall’s flesh. Whenever one of your thralls is destroyed, you can cause the thrall to leave behind difficult terrain in the space they were destroyed. The difficult terrain lasts for 10 minutes."

That paragraph implies that without this particular Thrall Enhancement, you can't pile enough Thrall bodies in a square to make it into Difficult Terrain.
Or maybe it's still possible,just harder to do.

Right now you can just add another Thrall anywhere you want one to be, as long as that spot is within 30' feet of you.
Decoupling Thrall movement from the Focus spells will drastically increase their potential range.

IF that is a problem,and I don't know that it is, we could limit the Thralls that can be moved to only those within range of a given casting of Create Thrall.
That would keep the movement range similar to the current Create range.

I'm not convinced Thrall movement is a good idea.
Moving them means resolving how they interact with the terrain and other characters as they move.
Unless said interaction is effectively none existent, it will take up time.

This brings me back to eliminating their ability to force a Tumble Through check.
We could reduce their occupation of a square to nothing more than increased movement cost and the first level of Cover.
We can make the Cover only protect allied and the movement penalty only affect enemies.
We could allow Thralls to be dismissed or moved
We could allow Thralls to share space with other characters, but if we allow them to be dismissed or moved, I don't think that it is a needed adjustment.

Ah,well also no no room to summon more Thralls then.

I can't see why not.
It seems intended.
On your point about available space,maybe there does need to be a deletion ability built into the spell.
Or allowing Thralls to share space with other characters.
Or both.
As things stand, I think you can just target the space right above them.
Thrall appears, attacks,falls down, pops out of existence?
Sounds messy.
More reason to allow deletion.

The question is does it stop movement through their square and if so tumble through is just a dc 10 action? It's weird because Thralls are and yet are not the most overpowered mechanic, if your DM's minions hit them with non-AoE effects they you basically don't want to win the fight and you can argue your DM is throwing the encounter but at the same time if they are't targetted then what is the point of them being creatures? Also if you want to stop an enemy from running away just make a box of Thralls around the battlefield, can't tumble through if there are 2 enemies back to back!

But I do like Thralls though.

Tumble Through one, attack the other?

I have suggested, in that other thread, a compromise.
Giving the Necromancer the ability to dismiss the Thralls won't hurt anything but it also won't help a GM that finds them too challenging.

So let's water down Trails even further.
The only effect they have on movement would be a 5' increase movement cost per Thrall occupied square.
The position issue didn't occur to me, but allowing any creature to share space with a Trall could be a boon to player and gm alike.

I'm really confused.
Why the concern about Thralls taking up space?
Am I wrong in my understanding of how moving through occupied squares works?
Is it because you can move through but not occupy a friendly characters space?

So this is mostly a bit of venting and/or ranting, but some insight from GMs who have run this AP is always appreciated.

So our expedition into Fort Rannick has gone horribly wrong. It may be for the best, as the other player and I are both in agreement that we aren’t happy with the way our GM runs things and a TPK might be the best way to end this campaign anyway since the GM is a friend that we have gamed with (he’s usually a player) for decades so we don’t want to upset him too much by just quitting his game.

Originally we were planning on getting in through the tunnels, but the night before we were going in Kaven disappeared and we found tracks going to the fort. We had been a bit suspicious of him and his sihedron tattoo, but his story about just getting it to gamble on Lucrecia’s boat seemed believable enough (we’ve got 2 PCs with high sense motive). With it obvious that he went and betrayed us we radically changed our plans, thinking that they would be ready and waiting for our basement assault. Instead we used invisibility and fly (burning a lot of our spellcasting for the day) to enter the fort from up top. We quickly dispatched the sentries in the tower, but one of them fell to the rampart below when he died (GM fiat) alerting the Ogres down there. We hurried downstairs and jumped another pair of ogres before the group from outside came running in. This is where things got out of hand. Suddenly our 7th level party was in a fight with a few regular ogres, 3 named fighter ogres, the ogre wizard(or sorcerer), and Mammy Graul, who had fled to Fort Rannick when we burned the farm. It seemed out of character to me that the ogres that were guarding the spellcasters would fight defensively too. We were overwhelmed before Lucretia also showed up, and then we lost one of our fighters before we could get out. Our GM then forced the characters player to increase his characters weight (he claimed it was unbelievably low) to the point that our other fighter could not carry him in his armor when we fled, so we had to leave him behind.

Our flight was still up, so we retreated to the giant eagle aerie to get away. There, with nearly zero resources left for the day, we had to fight a trio of Annis hags. We managed to just barely scrape by that fight with a random 5th level fighter joining in (replacement character for the guy who lost the fighter)

We rested up, and with wands were able to heal up enough to try for a body recovery the next day. We did some recon and found a lot of ogres on the second floor where we had fought the day before, but couldn’t get through such a big group of them to find the body of our comrade, so we tried to create a diversion, with an attack outside while our invisible ranger/fighter waited for a chance to reclaim the body and then flee. Instead of ogres rushing to fight us again this time though all we ended up accomplishing was getting even more ogres congregating where we suspected our companions body to be. At least we were able to slaughter several ogres on the ground floor.

We had done pretty well on the bottom floor though and wanted to push for our friends body, so we assaulted the group upstairs again. Almost immediately we had Mammy Graul dimension dooring out behind our group with a heavy hitting ogre and another ogre attacking us from the hall while Lucrecia hurled spells at us.

We managed to kill most of the ogres, but Mammy, Lucretia, and an unknown number of ogres remain. Our Cleric is down, the replacement fighter is 2HP from bleeding out. Mammy just dragged the unconscious cleric inside for who knows what purpose. Shalelu and Jakardros just showed up to help us out, but I don’t think anyone can take a full round against Lucretia (she’s getting high 30s-low 40s on all hit rolls so far) so I doubt that she will miss with any iterative attack. We have hurt her a bit (probably 40ish damage) but she doesn’t seem badly hurt. We were basicly deciding on fleeing now, or trying to take out Lucretia before we escape when we called the session last night, or just going death or glory (I am kinda hoping for death already as I mentioned above at this point, but I might be a bit too hot about this right now to make a good decision)

I guess I’m looking for perspective on this. Does this all seem in line with how Fort Rannick is supposed to work? Is our GM being unreasonable on how he’s running things? Are we just playing terribly that we can’t get through this? Am I just being an unreasonable player thinking that there should be some chance of success? Should we just tell our GM that we are done with this BS campaign, or go for the kill and/or our deaths?

apologies if this question has been asked before... I'm not having some search difficulty.

Do the chronicles assigned to a GM credit blob have to be assigned in the order that they were GMed in? For example, I have a character number that has never been played, and that I have assigned several chronicles to. If I then GM "The Confirmation" am I able to assign that at the beginning of the characters chronicles, as if it had been GMed at an earlier date than the later chronicles, or am I going to have to assign it to a new PC number instead?

Assuming a dip to pick up shield proficiency, Is there anything that would prevent a magus from doing spell combat while wielding a shield in one hand, keeping the other hand free for spell casting.

Arcane spell failure chance is going to be an issue, but a mithral shield can pretty much negate that. I just wanna make sure I am not missing some rule that will prevent my plan from working.

This character will be for PFS, so all of it's restrictions apply, also that makes the Skirnir archtype come into it's own too late in the game for me to want to go that route.

So I'm playing in a Rise of the Runelords campaign and I'm level 6. Fighter4/trapper Ranger2. We all have ridiculous stats due to the way we generated characters so my scores are Str19 Dex17 Con12 Int14 Wis15 Cha13. I'm sort of a trip build with Greater Trip, Combat Reflexes, Paired Opportunists, and Felling Smash (plus others but not as relevant) a couple other party members have paired opportunists and the other fighter has Vicious Stomp so we can capitalize on AoO madness.

I've recently started thinking we would be well off with more spell casting ability, No retraining allowed so I'm stuck with what I've done so far, and he's pretty fun as it is, but I can't help thinking that going Magus might be viable with him. True Strike for when we really need a trip to go off would be pretty nice, and with the magus arcana that uses your level for your CMB instead of your actual CMB would keep me working as normal once I can take it.

The question is if the spell casting is worth loosing out on weapon training and further armor training. Buying magic items hasn't been possible in this campaign so far and I expect that will not change, so we make due with what we find. I would have to give up on using a two handed reach weapon when I want to do spell combat, and give up my magic breastplate for now or deal with arcane spell failure chance. I still kind of think the spell casting might be worth it. We only use the Core rulebook, APG, Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic books, so all splat books material is out of consideration. Should I stick with the classes I have or start my magic training?

So I'm playing in an Adventure path with a fighter who has improved trip, and another player has a sword and board style fighter in the group. We are looking at working together to do some combos and I just wanted to check if this is going to come together the way I hope it will.

We both have combat reflexes, and will both be taking the greater versions of our combat maneuver at 6-7th level. At 8th we will take paired opportunists. The sword/board fighter might take vicious stomp right away (we are about to hit 4th)

If (once I have greater trip) I trip someone next to the sword/board fighter that will provoke attacks of opportunity from both of us (from greater trip) and will provoke a vicious stomp AoO from the sword/board fighter. With Paired opportunist, will our AoOs from greater trip give one another and additional AoO each? And further will his Vicious stomp allow me to take another AoO?

What happens when he starts to use Shield Slam and gets free bull rushes with every shield hit? If he has Greater Bull Rush and does a shield bash attack that free bull rush should provoke (and since it provokes from me should give him another AoO from Paired Opportunists). If I use my AoO to trip the foe, that is going to provoke attacks from my buddy, both regular and Vicious stomp, plus one from me... possibly another from each of us from paired opportunists... possibly another from me on his vicious stomp.

Is this all Legit? I think it is, but it sort of goes beyond what I've seen happen in any game so far. If so are there other ways to get more attacks of opportunity per round other than us just getting Dex belts because we are gong to run out of AoOs fast.

I'm just trying to get my head around what this will allow us to do and the best way to capitalize on it without investing too much on one trick.

Just curious about what advice people would offer for a my character I'm planning on for Rise of the Runelords. I'm not very experienced playing clerics, but think that this should work pretty well. We use rolled stats and everyone is starting off with pretty good numbers... way better than I would allow if I was GMing, but there is no flexibility other than where I put the racial bonus.

Str 16
Dex 10
COn 16
Int 10
Wis 16(+2racial)=18
Cha 15

Variant channel ability (rulership) for the daze effect on failed saves against my channel negative energy to harm living creatures.

Traits: Dangerously curious, Student of Faith(RotRL campaign trait +1DC for channel ability and +1 caster level for cure spells)
Feats: Selective Channeling, Command Undead

My plan is to take Sacred Summons at third level, and continue to take feats that improve my channel ability or improve my summoning ability all the way through. Not sure if I have the feats to spare though to do both effectively, and want to know if anyone sees glaring problems with this.

I'm curious about other peoples experience with how the Advanced Class Guide has changed your local scene for Pathfinder Society. Although I really like some of the new classes, I am starting to wonder if dropping so much new legal material on us all at once was a bad move.

It could be partly that the new school year started around the same time, but it's been way more difficult to get people to fill GM slots at the local venues here lately. Is this partly due to GMs not feeling comfortable running games with so many characters that have a ton of new rules associated with them, or is it just that everyone has more on their plate now?

If a wizard or sorcerer has multiple effects that increase the effective caster level of spells with certain descriptors, do these increases stack with one another.

For example, lets look at the spell Burst of Radiance. 2nd level evocation with the light and good descriptors. If this spell is cast by an elf with the alternate racial trait: lightbringer (treated as one level higher when determining the effects of any light-based spell or effect they cast) and the campaign trait: Force for Good (good-aligned spells are especially powerful, and they function at +1 caster level.)

Does this character cast the spell at caster level +2 or do the effects not stack?

Sorry if this has been adressed, I did a search but couldn't find a ruling on this.

I am curious if a character can retrain a feat that they got from one of their class levels to something else. For example, can an Alchemist retrain the Extra Bombs Feat thet they get (instead of Craft Potion for PFS) into some other feat using the re-training rules?

I am making a human inquisitor (conversion inquisition) of Asmodeus for PFS and I'm having a bit of a problem deciding if I should keep him straight up inquisitor or dip into fighter for first level.

I like the idea of a fighter level to start for heavy armor proficiency, martial weapon proficiency, defender of the society trait, and being able to start with the weapon focus and dazzling display feats right off the bat, but I usually stick to single class characters and have an aversion to cross classing. I also don't like the idea of having to wait until 5th level to use dazzling display, and then ninth to get cornugon smash.

Is a single level dip into fighter with an inquisitor going to pay off or will I regret it?