Seagull

The Rot Grub's page

840 posts. Alias of ronaldsf.



1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

The frilled heritage for the lizard folk gives you the Threatening Approach activity: 2 actions to Stride "to be adjacent to a foe" which lets you Demoralize the foe, with a success giving it the frightened 2 condition.

My player is using this as a Braggart Swashbuckler, and started his turn adjacent to a foe after using his finisher on a previous turn. He does "Threatening Approach" to walk 10 feet AWAY from the enemy and approaches the enemy again, thus getting an attempt to Demoralize a foe and possibly regaining panache.

I am allowing it, but I want to know if this strikes anyone as possibly overpowered?

Also, I have to say I would like clearer guidelines on what players would need to be doing during Exploration Mode to gain panache at the beginning of combat. Is the expectation that swashbucklers can start most battles with panache? I've been allowing this player to use Threatening Approach after battle starts in order to be able to roll Intimidate for initiative. However, I now notice that the Panache text description says that they gain panache if they roll initiative due to actions they take BEFORE an encounter. So I'm inclined to have him walk around strutting, perhaps with his lizard frills out, picking a fight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

First off, thanks to the developers for an awesomely designed Core Rulebook. The combined glossary/index is a godsend!

A few things that I hope can be implemented in a future printing or PDF update:

1. The "table of contents" in the righthand margin is a great way to flip to a chapter quickly. However, it would be great to add a way to jump to parts WITHIN a chapter. It does not have to disturb the Chapters sidebar -- it can be a separate list underneath that divides the current chapter into sections. This would be especially helpful for the Classes chapter, to be able to quickly jump to a particular class, and for the Crafting & Treasure chapter, to be able to jump to Alchemical Items or Worn Items quickly, for example.

2. More references to specific page numbers in the book. For examples, the spread of Ancestries and Classes on page 22-23 is a great starting place for making characters. It would be great to add page references so that people can jump to each Ancestry or Class quickly. Under Backgrounds, each Background refers to a Skill Feat. It would be very helpful to have a page reference for each Skill Feat.

3. Hyperlinks in the PDF. Especially since the PDF is being sold as a separate product and there is an online free SRD that has a somewhat different organization from the rulebook, it would be great if hyperlinks can be added to the PDF.


Do they? Specifically, a situation came up in our game last night where the Fighter had tripped a monster. The monster stood up on its turn, which as an action with the Move trait triggered an Attack of Opportunity.

So: Was the monster flat-footed against the attack due to being prone? Or did it stand up first, and THEN the fighter reacted?

I didn't find a clarification in the CRB about the timing of reactions. I just applied the logic of the language and reasoned that, since something needs a trigger to happen, that it takes place AFTER the trigger. Thus, the monster stood up and THEN the fighter had his Attack of Opportunity.


Let's say a 7th-level divine sorcerer wants to heal her friend using Neutralize Poison (which is in her spell repertoire). She has no more 3rd-level spell slots left, but has 4th-level spell slots available.

Can she cast Neutralize Poison?

I don't see this explicitly called out in the rulebook, but it makes sense to me that a spontaneous caster could. I view their slots as "spell energy" that they can use to produce a less-powerful effect.


It seems like you can, which seems counter-intuitive. They are attacking creatures at random, and when a party member slaps him, he now will not attack the party anymore?

Here is the relevant language from the Confused condition (page 618):
"Each time you take damage from an attack or spell, you can attempt a DC 11 flat check to recover from your confusion and end the condition."

I see the logic of it and will run it as written. But I wonder if the designers were aware that it could be used as a way for the party to "snap" the person out of it?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi all,

I am a GM looking at my large back catalog of print adventures from PF1, to use as material some of my friends' initial forays into PF2. (I am saving The Fall of Plaguestone and Age of Ashes for the groups I form once I actually recruit for them.)

I'm looking for a quick way to balance encounters from PF1 adventures in PF2. I understand that we should substitute monsters from the PF2 bestiary, but what about overall encounter balance?

So, while I was looking at the CRB's guidelines for creating encounters on page 489, I honed in on the phrase: "Extreme-threat encounters are so dangerous that they are likely to be an even match for the characters..."

Thinking back to PF1, Player Characters (PCs) were considered to be of a Challenge Rating equal to their character level. For example, a 2nd-level fighter PC was considered to be a Challenge Rating of 2 if it were encountered as an opponent, if it had an amount of gear appropriate to a PC. (If it had NPC-appropriate gear, it would be one CR lower, or CR 1.)

In both PF1 and PF2, the encounter-building tables assume a party with four PCs. And so an enemy encounter that was roughly equal in power to the party would be 4 higher than the average party level. (This would place it one CR above "Epic on this chart.)

The chart in the PF2 CRB on page 489 assumes a party of four characters, and so an Extreme-threat encounter has an XP budget of 160 XP.

So this is the conversion I have come up with:

* Look at the Challenge Rating from the PF1 module/adventure path. Convert it to PF2 using this chart:

CR is APL -1: 30 XP
CR is APL: 40 XP ("trivial")
CR is APL +1: 60 XP ("low")
CR is APL +2: 80 XP ("moderate")
CR is APL +3: 120 XP ("severe")
CR is APL +4: 160 XP ("extreme")

(Note that, happily, this means you can substitute a PF2 monster with a Level equal to a PF1 monster's CR... you can substitute four CR 1 ghouls from PF1 with four Level 1 ghouls from PF2.)

(Note also that PF2 modules rely more on "moderate" encounters as the baseline: The Fall of Plaguestonehas a generous number of "severe" encounters. This is probably due to a PF2 party's greater ability to replenish its resources using Treat Wounds and Refocus. The prudent GM should keep this in mind.)

What do people think of this? I will be converting some PF1 encounters soon using this chart. If you have any practical experience with this conversion method, please share!


Minor spoiler for the Fall of the Plaguestone module.

A very early encounter includes:

Spoiler:
... a room full of "Drunken Farmers". Their stats include:

DRUNKEN FARMER
...
Str +3, Dex +1, Con +1, Int +1, Wis +0, Cha +1
Items: durable farm clothes (counts as padded armor)
HP 16

They have no class levels, as this is not 3.x and we are leaving the paradigm that non-PCs are built like PCs.

But DAYUM, those ability scores! Their modifiers are almost as high as those of Level 1 heroes! (Using the default character generation system in the CRB, a character's modifiers total to +9, while these NPCs' modifiers add up to +7.)

And their HP matches that of a typical Level 1 human adventurer.

I've grown used to the idea that a 10 in an ability score represents average ability in the game world.

So is this the new norm for commoners? Is there even a "norm" or common expectation to speak of? Or is this one, but it was not adhered to for this module?

And compared to the non-adventurers around them, how do our heroes compare? It would seem that they are distinguished by the feats, and not by their ability scores...


Here is the text from the Shield Block general feat on page 266:

Quote:

Shield Block (reaction)

Trigger: While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack.
You snap your shield in place to ward off a blow. Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to the shield's Hardness. You and the shield each take any remaining damage, possibly breaking or destroying the shield.

Here is the text explaining Hardness:

Quote:

Hardness

Whenever a shield takes damage, the amount of damage it takes is reduced by this amount.

So I have two questions:

Is the remaining damage applied TWICE: once against me, and once against the shield?
Does hardness also reduce the damage applied against the shield?

Reading carefully above, I believe that the answer is YES to both questions. The Shield Block feat prevents "you" from taking damage equal to the shield's hardness. After that, the you and the shield "each" take "any remaining damage."

So this is my understanding of how the feat works:
*An orc does 10 slashing damage against my Champion. I react with Shield Block with my steel shield (hardness 5, 20 hp).
*I reduce the damage to me by the shield's hardness (5). I only take 5 damage.
*The remaining 5 damage is then applied both to me and to the shield.
*I take 5 damage, and the shield takes 0 damage because it has hardness 5.

Is this correct?


On page 278 in the Weapons section, a natural 20 results in a critical success:

Quote:

Critical Hits

When you make an attack and roll a natural 20 (the number on the die is 20), or if the result of your attack exceeds the target's AC by 10, you achieve a critical success (also known as a critical hit).

However, in "Chapter 9: Playing the Game" on pages 445-446, the book gives a general rule for determining critical successes on all checks:

Quote:
If you rolled a 20 on the die (a "natural 20"), your result is one degree of success better than it would be by numbers alone. If you roll a 1 on the d20 (a "natural 1"), your result is one degree worse. This means that a natural 20 usually results in a critical success and natural 1 usually results in a critical failure. However, if you were going up against a very high DC, you might get only a success with a natural 20, or even a failure if 20 plus your total modifier is 10 or more below the DC.

(The same chapter is followed by sections on "Specific Checks," including "Attack Rolls" and "Spell Attack Rolls," but those sections do not delineate any exceptions to this rule.

Since "Specific Overrides General" (p. 444), do natural 20s on weapon attack rolls operate differently than all other checks, as per the rule on page 278? (While natural 1s do not?) And if yes, I am assuming that spell attack rolls also automatically crit on a natural 20, even though this rule is listed in the "Weapons" section?


The rules for Familiars state on page 217:

Quote:

Modifiers and AC

Your familiar's save modifiers and AC are equal to yours before applying circumstance or status bonuses or penalties. Its Perception, Acrobatics, and Stealth modifiers are equal to your level plus your spellcasting ability modifier (Charisma if you don't have one, unless otherwise specified). If it attempts an attack roll or other skill check, it uses your level as its modifier. It doesn't have or use its own ability modifiers and can never benefit from item bonuses.

If a wizard with a familiar casts mage armor, the wizard gains a +1 item bonus to AC. A 1st-level wizard with Dexterity +2 will probably have an AC of 15; this becomes AC 16 after mage armor.

Does the familiar's AC still equal the wizard's AC? Or does it not benefit due to the prohibition on item bonuses?


According to the table and the text in the Bard section on page 98, they get their first class feat at 2nd level. However, the list of bard feats starts with a list of 1st-level bard feats (page 99), immediately followed by a list of 2nd-level bard feats (page 100).

Is it correct that they do not get a bard feat at first level?


The Playtest of Pathfinder 2E was a stress test, and my friends (who mostly are teenage Pathfinder 1E veterans) were lukewarm when they saw it. Some did not even try it. We had a session during the 2nd part of the playtest adventure where everyone did not enjoy the Exploration Mode and then died before entering the dungeon. People found the character creation limiting.

And so I'm inviting people to say (1) what has changed from the Playtest and (2) their impressions of the final product. Hopefully this can get some skeptics to come around to giving PF2 a shot.

I'll start:

*Resonance is gone. Consumable magic items no longer use a character's resources. Characters now can "invest" in 10 magic items during their daily preparations. Some magic items do not need to be invested.

*You add your level to your modifier only if you are Trained or higher. The modifiers have changed to Untrained +0, Trained Level+2, Expert Level+4, Master Level+6, Legendary Level+8. A 10th-level wizard will still exceed a 20th-level barbarian on scholarly tasks (unless it is a very scholarly barbarian.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Happy to see a revision to the death and dying rules, but one rule needs revision/clarification.

The 1.1 Errata states that, when you get knocked out, three things happen. The last is:

Quote:
* If the damage came from a lethal source, you gain the dying 1 condition. If the effect that knocked you out was a critical success from the attacker or the result of your critical failure, you gain the dying 2 condition instead. If the damage came from a nonlethal attack or effect, you don’t gain the dying condition, but you are still unconscious with 0 Hit Points.

Later, the Errata states:

Quote:

Taking Damage while Dying

If you take damage while you’re already unconscious, apply the same effects as if you had been knocked out by that damage, except you don’t move your initiative position. If you were already dying and the recovery save DC for the new damage is higher than your current recovery save DC, start using the higher DC.

So if you had the dying 3 condition, if you have a normal failure against a fireball spell, you now have the dying 1 condition... ?

It seems like the rule should read: "When you are damaged, the value of the Dying condition increases by 1. It is instead increased by 2 if you are critted by the attack or have a critical failure on your saving throw."

(Also, it looks like the section should be called "Taking Damage while Unconscious" since you can be unconscious and NOT dying. And I'm not sure why it cross-references the rules for getting knocked out when only one of the bullet points applies - perhaps it should just state what happens (increase Dying value by 1 or 2) without cross-referencing another rule.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought it would be useful to have a thread of differences from 1st Edition, to help people who are familiar with 1st Edition with learning the 2nd Edition rules. (There is a process of "unlearning" stuff that can get in the way of learning the new system.)

I'll start with a couple of obvious ones.

1. Not all creatures have Attacks of Opportunity. That is now a class feature for fighters and a class feat for some other classes. Creatures have different kinds of Reactions that may take the place of AoOs.

2. Feats are now grouped into General Feats, Skill Feats, Class Feats, and Ancestry Feats, which you can get at different times as your character levels up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are passages in the Playtest Rulebook that seem to contradict each other. My question is: do bursts need line of effect from their point of origin to affect a creature? (Familiarity with PF1 tells me yes but these passages seem to say otherwise.)

P. 299: "If there's no line of effect between the origin of the area and the target, the target is unaffected by the spell. For example, if there's a solid wall between the origin of a fireball and a creature that's within the burst radius, that creature doesn't need to attempt a save against the fireball and is unaffected by it."

P. 299: "AURA: ... an aura does not need line of effect to a target, but it must not be entirely cut off from the target (an aura in a lead box would not extend outside the box)."

P. 299: "BURST: ... A burst follows the same restrictions as an aura regarding cover or having line of effect."

So which is it? A burst follows the same restrictions as an aura, which does NOT require line of effect. But the fireball spell (which creates a burst), DOES require line of effect?

Also, there is some language above that need to be cleaned up -- it says that "areas" need line of effect. But "auras," which are a type of area, do NOT need line of effect...


Soon after getting the Playtest I started looking at some "sacred cow" spells to see if they had changed. I had a few -gasp!- moments:

- HASTE: Only affects one creature!

This makes it no longer an obvious choice when getting 3rd-level spells. This spell has needed a nerf.

- RAISE DEAD: It is now a 6th level spell. It MUST happen within 3 days of a creature's death, and the one-week enervation penalty is impossible to remove. It becomes significantly more expensive to raise high-level dead characters.

This effectively makes death no longer a cheap speed bump in high-level play. Also, taking away the ability to raise the dead after 3 days is a definite change to the game setting.

Are there other spells people have noticed that look like game changers? And what did you think of them?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The possibilities!

https://kotaku.com/cg-wasnt-used-to-create-this-sorcery-1826444174


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since the goblin announcement thread has blown up (see what I did there?) over the issue of goblins being a core race, I think there needs to be a space to discuss some of the leaked mechanics about how ancestries work:

Quote:
It includes the base goblin ability boosts (Dexterity and Charisma), ability flaw (Wisdom), bonus Hit Points (6), base speed (25 feet), and starting languages (Common and Goblin), as well as the rules for darkvision (an ability that lets goblins see in the dark just as well as they can see in normal light). Those are just the basics—the rules shared by all goblins. Beyond that, your goblin's unique ancestry allows you to choose one ability score other than Dexterity or Charisma to receive a boost. Perhaps you have some hobgoblin blood and have an additional boost to Constitution, or you descend from a long line of goblin alchemists and have a boost to Intelligence. You could even gain a boost in Wisdom to negate your flaw!

I like the "flex" ability score boost. Currently, when you choose to be a sorcerer, you rule out any race that doesn't allow you to get a bonus in Charisma. In PF2 when you choose a class, you don't rule out nearly as many. However, the ability score that an ancestry gets a flaw in does tend to rule out that being your class's main stat; but the ability to negate the flaw mitigates this.

Small characters now seem to default to having a base speed of 25'. I assume it's less realistic, but it is less crippling and less unfun than PF1's base speed of 20'.

It looks like we're using Starfinder's system of giving base hit points based off of race. I'm surprised that it's 6 points -- suggests that low-level characters in PF2 will tend to have even more hit points than in Starfinder? Personally I feel like the industry has been TOO lenient on low-level characters. But I suppose the new Death and Dying rules act to "even out" the lethality across all 20 levels.

Quote:
Then you get into the goblin ancestry feats, which allow you to decide what type of goblin you want to play.

I think I like this. First, starting with the 1st Pathfinder playtest forward, Paizo has been trending toward giving you lists of options instead of dictating what you can do -- both for classes and for races. More options means more ability to customize your character, which will be the main appeal of PF2 over its main competitor, 5e. Second, in PF1, the boosts that a race gets tend to be forgotten as your more-powerful abilities are derived from your class and feats at higher and higher levels. I am concerned about how "artificial" it might feel to have abilities from your ancestry, which in theory is about your past, gated behind level-ups. Still, it does mean that your ancestry is relevant even as you level up, for you'll have access to abilities that no other ancestry has. It maintains the unique feel of each ancestry.

In sum, I'm optimistic about the proposed changes but would like to see more details before I decide how I feel about them. What do other people think?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For Pathfinder RPG veterans out there, what rules from PFRPG are changed or no longer exist in Starfinder? I thought it would be good to have a thread on differences people might easily overlook.

I'll start!

A full action uses all your actions in a round. You cannot do a swift action in addition to it. Also, you can trade out a standard action for anything "lesser" (including a swift action), and the same with a move action. (Source p. 244)

Other things you are finding? Post them here!


One of my players has the dwarven Stonelord paladin archetype, which comes with an earth elemental. I have a dungeon-heavy campaign (Rappan Athuk), and he wants to use the elemental to scout ahead.

I don't want his intelligent choice to go unrewarded; but I do want to make a set of rulings that are consistent with the rules and don't disrupt balance.

First, his tremorsense ability can only extend 60'. I have overruled his interpretation that is like blindsense for anyone touching earth -- I refer to the text and require that something be moving so as to cause "vibrations" with the earth.

Second, what if he wants to peek into a room? I am requiring that he succeed at a stealth check. My understanding of the earth glide ability is that it is as if one where a "fish swimming in water", and it leaves no ripples or trace of its use. This implies that one is completely silent while doing so. However, for balance reasons, I want to require a Stealth vs. Perception check to make sure that the elemental isn't noticed. The text does not say that the movement is silent.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

And on a related note, I am ruling that coming out of earth provokes an attack of opportunity as if one were stepping out of that square, but the elemental benefits from a +4 cover bonus to AC.


As an afterschool tabletop RPG teacher at a Bay Area middle school, and as someone who regularly GMs with kids, I see the Pokemon Go phenomenon having huge potential not only for gaming, but human culture in general.

After decades of people lamenting that computer gaming has brought kids indoors, suddenly there is this game that brings people outdoors and makes a GAME of it, combining physical activity with the trappings of computer roleplaying games: leveling up, managing resources, etc.

Well, I've been wondering what if there were a mobile app where people could be Pathfinder characters. They would have to interact with the environment in some way to earn XP or get treasure? And they could battle with other people they meet?

I could see kids at my school having fun with such a game during recess -- maybe not involving the physical travel of course, given the physical limitations of a school -- but perhaps using the resources and XP they gathered over a weekend to battle it out with their friends.

From what I hear, one thing the Pokemon Go game lacks in, is in its simple combat system. If there were more interesting choices, perhaps an ARG (Augmented Reality Game) that uses the tropes of tabletop RPGs could fill an unfilled niche.

Just throwing this idea out there. What do other people think!?

EDIT: And the name "Pathfinder" would be PERFECT for such a game! =D


In Ultimate Combat, where kikko armor original appears under Eastern Armor and weapons, it costs 250gp.

But in Ultimate Equipment, it costs only 30gp.

This is strange, because technically it is superior to the more-expensive scale mail in every way (greater Max Dex bonus, lower Armor Check Penalty, lighter weight, lower Arcane Spell Failure Chance).

Was this discrepancy intended? Or is it a misprint?


I have a player who loves to squeeze out all the potential of every class to the point of it being ridiculous: we argue over it, I nerf his combos even if it means departing from the rules as written, and he accepts it. It's part of our fun, shall we say.

Well, now in our high-level Pathfinder campaign he walks in with a bard 6 / Pathfinder chronicler 10 as a potential character he wants to try out (We have a tournament going on in the adventure, where the players have had a chance to create NPC characters that they run during the tournament. They also have had a chance to "test drive" some of them on adventures if they've wanted.) I didn't have time to review his character before the session (was a busy week).

Well, we also have a strong tank/offensive fighter in the group. Well, during the first player's (Pathfinder chronicler's) turn, he has his follower read an epic tale with the Pathfinder Chronicler's Inspire Action effect on it. The fighter uses this free standard action to walk up to the baddie. Then the chronicler himself uses Inspire Action as a swift action (since he is the equivalent of a 14th level bard) to give the 2nd player ANOTHER standard action. He then uses his standard action to activate Inspire Action a THIRD time, so that the fighter now has TWO standard actions. And since two standard actions = 1 full round, the fighter unleashes a full attack! (He does an average of 300 damage.) Two characters later, it would have been the fighter's turn again.

I said oh no, this is crazy: first of all, I should never have let you bring your follower into the dungeon and I told you weeks ago that you can't use the Leadership feat to give yourself allies in combat, and second two standard actions don't equal a full attack -- they equal two individual attacks. They said nyah nyah fine.

So I bring this up to the fine people of this forum. I've already done some searching but I can't find clear answers:
* Can a high-level bard use 2 bardic performances in a round?
* Can a high-level Pathfinder chronicler inspire 2 actions in a round?
* Should 2 extra/free standard actions allow one to have a full-round action?

I am not going to allow him to bring followers again (they will go on strike!). And I am open to his Inspire Action combo working as he intends -- I'd just put more creatures in the encounters that would be rendered trivial otherwise. But it also strikes me as a bit over the top. What do people think?


I'm starting this thread to share (and in my case, request!) various tools to help GMs implement the ideas in Pathfinder Unchained. Which is awesome, by the way. :)

For firsters, I would love to be able to print out a character sheet that has the shorter list of 12 skills...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've decided to form this thread because I'm kinda tired of debates about the value of a theoretical future edition, when I think it's more interesting to talk about what, among the options in Pathfinder Unchained and elsewhere that exist right now , do I like?

So I thought: what would MY Pathfinder be like? They say there are as many ways to make chili as there are people who make it. Since, with Pathfinder Unchained, Paizo has given us a smorgasbord of options for our tables, I'm curious to see what other people are using from Pathfinder Unchained and other places to make their version of Pathfinder!

Here's what I'm thinking of using from Unchained:
* The 4 revised base classes in Unchained. I don't feel like I lose anything by shelving the previous versions of these classes.
* Fractional Base Bonuses. Sheesh, it makes more sense, is more balanced, and why not?
* The 12 consolidated skills in Unchained. My main concern is my middle-school kids who encounter Pathfinder for the first time not being overwhelmed by the complexity. Also, this shorter list is more conducive to a new GM being able to apply them to new situations.
* Background Skills Already in my home campaigns I've been giving one free skill rank at Level 1 that could only go toward a Craft, Profession, or Perform skill. This expands on that idea.
* Stamina and combat tricks exclusive to fighters. I think the Fighter couldn't hurt from a little boost, and I want it to have more niche abilities that no one else can have!
* Diseases and Poisons Yes! I've always thought that diseases and poisons should be more feared in Pathfinder instead of just be a minor inconvenience, which is all I've seen it as in play.
* Automatic Bonus Progression Particularly, I want to use the variant that eliminates Wealth by Level and starts Level 1 characters at Level 3 on the chart. Magic items are rare and precious!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is the announcement, including screenshots, on ENWorld!

Quote:

An upcoming Dungeons & Dragons video game based on the new D&D 5th Edition rules will allow groups of up to four players to cooperate in online games run by a real human Dungeon Master. Called Storm Coast Legends, it's coming this year, and is being developed by n-Space and Digital Extremes. It sounds very much like a game partly inspired by the Neverwinter Nights video games.

Developer Dan Tudge mentions the setting. "You can certainly expect to visit iconic locations along the Sword Coast and you may even run into a few familiar faces along the way." He also goes on to talk about how the game actually works: "Dungeon Master Mode is going to allow players to quickly jump in and play as a real-time DM in a way that has never really been fully realized in a video game. DMs are able to adjust encounters, place, promote, manage and even control monsters, set traps, reward and punish party members – all in real time"

Not only that, but a Campaign Mode allows for much larger storylines, and a Single Player mode allows one player to lead a groups of adventurers recruited within the game.

It almost sounds like the ultimate in virtual tabletops, although it's not clear what worldbuilding tools or custom content can be included.

Tudge talks about the inspiration behind the game. "When I directed Dragon Age: Origins the mission was to create the ‘spiritual successor to Baldur’s Gate’ and I think players really felt like Origins achieved that. With Sword Coast Legends we are also continuing the legacy of the Baldur’s Gate series so you will see strong influences from not only those games, but from Dragon Age: Origins as well. You will definitely feel the influence in the tactical party-based combat, pause and play and character progression, but it’s the rich story and memorable characters where the influence is strongest."

My personal opinion? The screenshots and the hotkeys suggest more of an action-focused game to me. For me, the magic word I want to see is "turn based", but I understand them trying to reach a broader market. Also, my quick internet research shows Dan Tudge to be the game director and executive producer behind Dragon Age: Origins, which I enjoyed a lot.


I played a couple PFS games back in 2011 and those sessions show up under my character when I click "Sessions". I then went about 3 years during which I didn't play any PFS.

For a recent convention (Pacificon) at the end of August 2014, I remade that character (new name, new class, everything), since it looked the PFS rules allowed me to substitute my character so long as I was still Level 1. I then earned 9 XP over the course of the convention (I played 1 scenario and part of Emerald Spire!).

None of those sessions from Pacificon are showing up when I click "Sessions". Is it because I changed my character? Or is it just that it usually takes a while before GMs report their sessions?

And do I need to even worry about this? Am I okay just bringing my Chronicle Sheets wherever I go in case a GM wants to check on my character?


I'd like a clarification on a rule, or expectation if you will: I recently GMed a group through Volume 1 of Wrath of the Righteous, but I threw some softballs and allowed some rerolls. I also allowed Hero Points. Subsequently, I have gotten into PFS and so have some of my players, and now I see that it might be possible to reward Chronicle sheets for playing sanctioned portions of APs.

But my impression of PFS is that GMs should run "by the book", and that character death should not be fudged. I completely understand the reason for consistency in an Organized Play system.

Is it the intention of the PFS organizers that campaigns run in the manner I ran WotR -- I'll call it "Campaign Mode" because it's intended to foster a long-running campaign where there is character continuity (i.e. characters are more likely to survive) -- should receive PFS credit? Or should I make sure to, when I run an AP with the intention of earning my players (and myself) PFS credit, shift to "PFS Mode" and run it strictly?


This might be obvious, but I can't seem to find an answer to this question.

When someone uses a wand or a scroll against a creature that has Spell Resistance, what is the caster level check one uses?

Does a character use his or her own caster level, or the caster level of the wand or scroll?

Thanks in advance!


The FAQ already says the following:

Quote:

If I encounter a Skeleton Horde and I don't have enough Ancient Skeleton henchmen cards in the box for all the players to encounter, what happens?

Resolve each encounter sequentially, including the part where you banish it at the end. This means that as long as there's one in the box for anybody to fight, there's one in the box for everybody to fight.

Resolution: On page 12 of the rulebook, under "Summoning and Adding Cards", after "...unless you're instructed otherwise," add the following sentence:
"If an effect causes multiple characters to summon and encounter cards, resolve the encounters sequentially, in any order you like, including banishing the card at the end of the encounter."

The intention I take from this, is that when multiple summons are called for, the number of creatures encountered is limited to what is still left in the box. When a card is banished, it would no longer be in the box to be summoned.

However, the definition on page 9 for "Banish" reads:

Quote:
Banish: Put it back in the box, shuffling it in with the other cards of the same type (thus losing it for good).

So, shouldn't Banish instead mean that the card is not even put in the box. As in, set aside? At least for monsters that might potentially be summoned?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I got a copy of Dreamscarred Press' Ultimate Psionics and thought it would be fun to open up the psionic classes to my middle-school kids group just for this AP. They've been all over it, and most of them have already created their Level 1 characters!

I'm just wondering if anyone else has thought of doing this, since it would seem to meld with the sci-fi elements of this AP nicely.

I would need to modify the campaign and their backstories so that there's a reason why they have psionic powers in a world where they're not common.

So yeah... anyone else trying this and anyone else have thoughts or suggestions?


I am a Pathfinder player and have not had much interest in playing D&D 4e -- I can't get past the presentation and I find running combat too complicated for my tastes. However, looking through the D&D Essentials Monster Vault, I do like how monster abilities are not bound by the same rules as players and so allow for more variety and (egad!) flavor in the mechanics: all of which I can appropriately narrate to my Pathfinder players.

(For example, I just randomly opened it to the zombie, who gets a free grab against PCs and does more damage to a PC when he or she is grabbed. So flesh-eating swarming zombies FTW!)

Now, I am not so naive as to think that I can just use a 4e statblock, do simple math, and plop them into Pathfinder. There are conflicts between the systems because of different assumptions built into the rules. Nor am I looking for a "deep" conversion where I have to understand how the 4e creature was built from the ground up, in order to re-build the creature in Pathfinder from the ground-up.

I simply want guidelines and pitfalls to avoid for using a 4e statblock in my Pathfinder adventures. (It also means I have more monsters to use in Pathfinder, so Yay That.)

Well, here are my current guidelines:

CR 1 in Pathfinder seems to be roughly equivalent to Level 3 in 4e. Also, it seems like monsters in 4e double in power with every increase in 4 levels, while in Pathfinder they double in power with every increase of 2 CR. So, in weighing monster difficulty I've come up with the following chart.

Level 1 --> CR 3
Level 3 --> CR 4
Level 5 --> CR 5
Level 7 --> CR 6
Level 9 --> CR 7
Level 11 --> CR 8
Level 13 --> CR 9
Level 15 --> CR 10
Level 17 --> CR 11
Level 19 --> CR 12
Level 21 --> CR 13
Level 23 --> CR 14
Level 25 --> CR 15
Level 27 --> CR 16
Level 29 --> CR 17

(EDIT: I just looked at some higher-level Level 20+ monsters and these guidelines were way off! They seemed okay for Levels 1-10 however.)

For non-standard creatures, the Monster Vault gives its own guidelines:
4-6 minions = 1 standard creature
2 standard creatures = 1 elite creature
5 standard creatures = 1 solo creature

If people have other guidelines to add, that's great. (That's why I'm starting this thread.)

The Monster Vault does not give me the rules for combat, so I have other questions like: Are there 5 foot steps in 4e? Are there AoOs in 4e?

Also, I see that a "Hulking Zombie (Level 4 brute) is automatically killed when it receives a critical hit. So I wonder: are critical hits harder to obtain in 4e?

I hope my meaning is clear that I'm looking for guidelines and pitfalls to avoid when using a 4e monster in Pathfinder.

Thanks in advance!


I don't know which forum to post this in, but I thought it might be fun to share.

I teach a middle-school afterschool program where kids play tabletop RPGs, and every semester we have a 2v2 tournament. This semester, the kids have gotten involved designing the arenas themselves.

Possibly inspired by the NBA playoffs, and my own adaptation of the arena from Catching Fire with random events last fall, one of my students came up with the idea of our next arena being a basketball court! He had a lot of other crazy ideas too, including turning the court into an ice hockey rink, but I had to limit the concept so that it didn't overshadow the optimization choices made by the players.

I made up a ruleset for Pathfinder characters to play basketball, only "without those fussy rules that get in the way of violence."

Just thought folks might enjoy this!

(And we don't yet have an idea for our Championship Arena! I'd love to hear some of your ideas!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The title says it all.

I often run encounters where I have three, four, or more of the same type of creature. But I lose track of who's who, which makes it hard to remember who has how many hit points, who has temporary status effects, etc.

The problem worsens when they move around each other on the battlefield -- my improvised system of writing HP totals on my sheet the same way they are positioned on the mat becomes useless.

So it would be great to have pawn bases that are numbered, or of different colors, so I don't lose track! :)


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

In the Core Rulebook, when rolling magic items for a settlement, it states: "Reroll any items that fall below the community's base value."

In Ultimate Campaign, when rolling magic items generated by buildings, it states: "[The magic] item's price cannot exceed the base value for the settlement (reroll if the item's price exceeds the settlement's base value)."

Can someone explain this to me? Thanks in advance.


Does anyone else have this problem? I am on my desktop computer and my searches for "Pathfinder goblin" and "Pathfinder cleric" don't bring up their entries in the PRD anymore. Instead, my first results from the Ultimate Magic playtest.

I get this same problem when I switch browsers on my desktop.

This makes me have to go to the PRD main page and find my result under the relevant headings, instead of jumping straight to my desired destination with a Google search...


The chart of actions in the Combat chapter lists "Prepare to throw splash weapon" under FULL-ROUND actions.

So, assuming I don't have the Quick Draw feat, is this correct?

Round 1:
I draw out the alchemist's fire (move action, provokes AoOs)
I begin to prepare it to be thrown (standard action, provokes AoOs)

Round 2:
Finishing preparing it (standard action, provokes AoOs)

Note the following quote from the Combat chapter:

Quote:

Start/Complete Full-Round Action

The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can't use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.

Round 3:

Throw the alchemist's fire (standard action, provokes AoOs)


In the campaign session I was GMing on Saturday, the party was clawing its way out of an underground complex filled with monsters. All of their casters had used up their daily spells, and so they set up camp within a temple and barricaded the doors to replenish their spells.

It was about 1PM in-game. I whipped out the Core Rulebook to see what the rules in the Magic chapter were for spell preparation. I had a cleric, a wizard, and a sorcerer in the party. I don't have the CRB with me now, but from my close reading it looked like divine casters needed to wait for a specific time per day before they could pray/meditate for their spells. In contrast, for the wizard and sorcerer it looked like their only requirement was to rest 8 hours.

So did that mean that at 9pm, the wizards and sorcerers could replenish their spells, but the cleric could not and would need to wait for the next morning? Is there some language I'm missing that limits the arcane casters here? I know that their Class sections say "spells per day," but I expected this limitation to be repeated in the rules for resting in Chapter 9 but it looks like they're not (for arcane casters only, that is).


I'm helping a player who's creating a cleric for my campaign. He doesn't have much experience with Pathfinder and is asking for my advice on feats.

So one of my first thoughts was to take Heavy Armor Proficiency, especially since he has a low DEX bonus. And so I look at various class guides and builds out there, but I don't see this feat included.

Is there a reason for that? From what I can see, full plate affords a +3 to AC over the best medium armors. The only reason I see for a cleric not to take Heavy Armor Proficiency is (1) there are other feats they are prioritizing or (2) they have a high DEX mod (but mithral heavy armor adds +2 to the maximum DEX bonus). This particular player wants to get into melee, and so I see it as necessary for his character.

I can see why rangers and barbarians won't take Heavy Armor Proficiency, because it would cancel out important class abilities. But I don't see what clerics would lose.

Is there something I'm not considering?


I am starting a new Wrath of the Righteous campaign a week from now, and I am considering using the standard Elite Array:

15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

I don't want to roll for stats for an AP, and I want to use something equivalent to a 15-point buy for this campaign so that it runs as intended without major modifications on my part (I have four players).

I am considering using an Array because I am trying to avoid metagaming where people discount certain classes (such as the Monk) because they tend to get the short end of the stick in point-buy systems.

What has people's experience been with the Elite Array? Does it do a decent job of reducing the imbalance between MAD and SAD classes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious to see how the Adventure Paths rank, if one were to "add up" everyone's rankings and come up with a "master list" of sorts. After I give my rankings in my second post, I hope other people will join me!

(WARNING: THIS THREAD WILL PROBABLY CONTAIN SPOILERS)

A barebones ranking isn't very useful to other people, so I am giving double weight to your vote if you do the following:

1. Give your criteria. For example, are you judging by meta-plot, by your group's particular experience, by what was provided to the GM versus what the GM added? Everyone has different reasons for their rankings -- please state YOUR reason(s).

2. Rank each AP with at least a phrase on what you thought of it. Rank those APs you feel you know enough about to rank. You must have either read, played, or GMed part of the AP enough. (Exposure to only part of an AP is okay.)

I will check here regularly and tabulate the results using my overly-complicated system detailed in the spoiler.

Here is the listing of the Adventure Paths. I include the Dungeon magazine APS as well:

A. Shackled City
B. Age of Worms
C. Savage Tide
1. Rise of the Runelords
2. Curse of the Crimson Throne
3. Second Darkness
4. Legacy of Fire
5. Council of Thieves
6. Kingmaker
7. Serpent's Skull
8. Carrion Crown
9. Jade Regent
10. Skull & Shackles
11. Shattered Star
12. Reign of Winter
13. Wrath of the Righteous

Here is my scoring system:

Spoiler:

For the APs that you DO list, the #1 ranked AP receives 16 points. The remaining APs get less than 16, in proportion to the number of APs you list. If you mark any APs as a tie, they get an equal number of points.

For example, if you list 5 APs, they receive:
#1 choice - 16 points
#2 choice (tie) - 12 points
#2 choice (tie) - 12 points
#4 choice - 4 points
#5 choice - 0 points
Unlisted APs – no vote

I then mark down the average points that each AP receives. If you followed the guidelines above, then you effectively cast two votes.

Spreadsheet where I'm quantifying people's votes


2 people marked this as a favorite.

First, I want to extend my thanks to the Paizo staff for publishing Mythic Adventures and I'm VERY excited to try out these options in my campaign.

I also want this thread to be a place where folks can figure out what rules might NOT work in their games and how GMs should deal with them: whether that be selective exclusion or adjusting their campaigns and encounters.

I understand that "balance" can mean different things and that, in the end, the goal is to have fun, which is different for every GM and every group.

Okay, so enough with the disclaimers!

After looking over the entire book, I went back to Chapter 1 and started reading through the Path Abilities, and found a couple under Archmage that seemed to be too powerful:

Mythic Hexes (Su): Your hexes are more effective against non-mythic targets. When you use a hex that requires a saving throw against a non-mythic target, that target is automatically affected for 1 round (which doesn't count toward the hex's duration) and can't attempt a saving throw to resist the hex...

I immediately wondered: What could stop a melee fighter from running up adjacent to a CR 20 non-mythic dragon, the witch casts her slumber hex, and the fighter coup de graces the dragon? Sure, mooks could get in attacks of opportunity against the fighter -- but not against the witch, and the witch wouldn't even need to use any of her mythic power!

I understand that mythic abilities should be Capital P Powerful, but I don't want a path ability (a 1st-tier one at that) that negates the drama of even the most important boss battles. The only way I see this could be countered is to make every important opponent mythic...

The next Path Ability I'm concerned about:

Rapid Preparation: You can prepare a spell in an open spell slot in only 1 minute instead of the normal 15 minutes. You can prepare spells in all of your available spell slots in only 15 minutes instead of the normal 1 hour. As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to instantly prepare one spell in an open spell slot.

That last sentence seems to negate the strength of spontaneous casters. Why be a sorcerer, when a wizard can have many more spells in his spellbook, all of which are "unlocked" via a swift action?

Perhaps I am I overly concerned about this... after all, mythic power is a precious resource that could otherwise be used to cast mythic versions of spells and do many other awesome things. How did these Path Abilities work out during the playtest?


Question's in the title. All of these descriptions in statblocks talk about successful saves making one immune "to the same [name of creature]'s ability for 24 hours."

Does that mean a low-level party, when faced by multiple yeth hounds, will almost certainly drop their weapons and run away?


I'm on my iPhone right now, and I'm trying to find a section that is not near the top. But to get there, I have to scroll past dozens of sections dedicated to now-closed playtests, some from 4 or 5 years ago.

Is there a way to please "nest" the playtests sections, and to consolidate other sections? Right now, it's a beast to navigate...


I am starting a Kingmaker campaign tomorrow (June 2), and I have only had a chance to read the first two chapters, read the campaign outline, and read the intro to chapter 3.

I see that the settlers of Varnland were being led by a Maegar Varn. Also, I see that the PCs' relations to the Swordlords of Rostland shift over time, such that the Swordlords withdraw their open support for the new settlements.

I also see that the other 2 main regions of the Stolen Lands to the west were also colonized by other groups who were granted charters.

Have other GMs introduced NPCs from these other groups, or from Rostland, at the beginning of the campaign? I am thinking that maybe I could introduce one or two figures before my PCs head out to Oleg's Trading Post. It would make the later developments more interesting, if there already are personages the PCs are familiar with.

Are there pitfalls to this approach?

Also, besides the Campaign Outline, are there specific portions of Kingmaker people recommend I give a close read before starting our first session, so as to prepare for future events?

Thanks in advance!

1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>