For the last month, I've been studying Pathfinder Adventure Paths, specifically ones with dungeon crawls in it. Usually they are the ones Greg A Vaughn do. I noticed that in these long dungeon crawls, they tend to have encounters that are one to two levels below the ECL scattered about. Furthermore, I've used this method and have found that dungeon crawls last longer without a lot of rest in-between and are still challenging. I'd suggest trying that. I also like to scatter traps in there as easier ways to gain XP without the same resource expenditure.
There's a reason the 3.5 DMG suggested that you only make half of the fights even EL with the party. Doing something like this not only increases dungeon longevity without over-pressuring the players, but it gives the fights more variety as well. The Alexandrian has a good writeup on the matter.
Hmm... Cayden is a CG deity. How does this sit with your char being LN?
I can change it, I havent played this char yet so I'll just have to tweak the backstory, no biggie.
If you're looking for more information on the alignments, this is a good place to look. The author takes the alignment descriptions from 3.5 (basically the same as PF in this case -- almost word for word), and simply expands upon them with his individual alignment descriptions. He goes into reasonable detail, and I've found it helps a lot of new players. It certainly helped me solidify my views on alignment.
The knowledge check needed to identify a monster's abilities and weaknesses is 10 + the Cr of the creature in this case a Cr 9 so the DC was 19 for abilites and weaknesses which is up to interpretation, but the plural forms of those words are used. So you were wrong there.
Less wrong than you might think.
PFSRD wrote:
A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.
It says that it gives "a bit," not several. And for every 5, you get another. I'd say he ruled that part just fine (how he determined which ability the wizard knew is more up for debate -- and, I think, up for personal GM ruling).
I'm honestly mostly curious about how your wizard only got a 22 on that roll. With maxed ranks, an appropriate level (10-12 at least), and an easily achieved 24 Int (16 base, +2 race, +2 levels, +4 headband), you're already looking at +20-22.
That said, I think I'm with H.P. Makelovecraft and would have given the wizard knowledge of the dance (rolling to recognize the specific ability, not to see if it knew any one ability). But it's your game, and you decided to leave it up to the dice. The dice gods looked upon the wizard, and said "no". If random chance isn't fair, then I really don't know what is.
Also, the players probably should have known the vrocks were up to something and wouldn't just start randomly dancing in the air for no reason -- I'd say that's enough reason in itself to either get the hell out of Dodge, or try to stop them from dancing.
Pendin Fust wrote:
So after 3 rounds the party had been damaged enough, the damage was 15d6 (assuming all 3 vrocks joined in) which at best is 90 and is more likely to be 45 on average, they were all within 10 ft radius of the vrocks flying 90ft in the air, with a DC19 reflex to halve, to kill multiple PC's? What the heck was the wizard and ranged guys doing? What level was the party?
alientude mentioned that they died to the encounter, not the dance itself. I suspect it was just massive initial damage combined with a relatively tough fight (vrocks can do a fair bit of harm).
There are some good rules for this on the PRD from the Bestiary. Mix a couple of templates with adding class levels and/or straight HD, and you should have it worked out pretty well. I've advanced a few low-level modules with relative success. The guidelines presented aren't perfect for every situation, but they are a great place to start. Work with them, then fiddle as appropriate. It really is more art than science in some cases.
You will probably have to add in extra abilities for power-based creatures as you advance them, but that's not too hard to do (just look for appropriate level spell-like abilities and spells to give them, then add those in).
Well, there's a thread that's been floating around this forum for a while that was recently made into a sticky at the top you can always check for guides. And in that thread we see Treantmonk's guide, and Peterrco's guide to druids, as well.
Just realized that Improved Natural Attacks is a Monster feat.
Unless your GM says so, there are actually no rules that forbid PCs from taking monster feats. They're just usually used for monsters and have requirements that most PCs don't meet. So as long as you have the +4 BAB and a natural attack, there is nothing stopping you from taking Imp. Natural Attack.
If my players all came to me and said they wanted to run an all-psionic party, I would grin from ear to ear.
When I found PU and the first four PE books, I actually switched over completely to psionics. I ended up removing my ban on core magic simply because of the lack of illusion and necromantic (specifically undead related necromancy) powers, and because there just isn't quite the flavor variety that is available in the core classes (due to having a larger number of extra books for them). That's all I have felt is missing from psionics. I tried pushing for a bit of an illusion-based Cryptic, but it didn't quite happen (got turned into the Distorter archetype, I believe, which is cool, but not the same).
I still greatly prefer psionics in my game, though, and simply adore the rules. There's a lot of flavor, lore, and love put into the books, and they're really balanced as long as you're able to avoid the nova issues discussed above -- but, as mentioned, that's something you want to do with the core rules anyways.
Two face, my players definitely have and use appraise. Especially the dwarfs and rogues.
Well, thankfully, there is wiggle room for Appraise (up to 20% change in either direction), which still gives you the option of adjusting the prices as needed (assuming you gave a reasonable estimate from the start).
Also, as far as the wealth-by-encounter table goes, I imagine it's also trying to account for a certain number of monsters that just don't carry treasure, of which there are quite a few. Or maybe, as MagiMaster and Gauss have pointed out, it accounts for use of consumables and other potentially gear-unrelated expenditures.
One thing I have noticed, at least with the groups I've played in, is that no one seems to even have Appraise, let alone use it. So I started capitalizing on that by giving out gems in place of coins. When they go to sell the gems, depending on what other things they have kept and sold, they get the right amount of money to balance them out. I don't keep it exact, but it definitely helps keep my party in the ballpark. And they're none the wiser.
And really, it makes sense for things to carry gems instead of coins, because they are much smaller and easier to hide/carry.
If you can add some casters that have the ability to charm or dominate the PCs, that could work very well. I have similar problems with my groups, and while I don't really run APs so I can't give great advice on CoT specifically, that method works very well.
So, if it makes thematic sense, you could probably switch in a caster or two to drop some stuff to turn the PCs on each other (or even just charming them into standing there), or just hinder them from getting close (walls, pits, spikes/spears in the ground, some form of cover, what have you) while your other NPCs smash them from a distance. Have a bowman sit there with a readied action to pepper one of the casters to interrupt a spell.
I've found that DPR races aren't fun for anyone, because it's too threatening to the PCs, as you mentioned. But, I'd ask your players first if they're happy with where things are at, or if they'd prefer a bit less of the DPR race from the NPC side (even if they stay with their blasty types) before you start messing with it. If they're happy, just have fun blasting away at the PCs; they've accepted the risks, and are having fun, so it doesn't matter much. If they're not happy, adjust it however you can within the limits of the AP.
I once had a Fighter that was a member of some lost order of mage-killers who had a pair of anti-mage intelligent wakizashi.
Gom and Jabbar
Gom: +1 Corrosive
Jabbar: +1 Shocking
10 Int/Wis/Cha
Senses and Communication: Normal senses to 30'; telepathy. +1 ego.
Special Cause: Hunt evil magic-users. +2 ego.
Special Powers: Cast dispel magic once per day. +1 ego.
Other Qualities: Secretive. -2 ego.
Cost of each: 15,000 gold. +3 ego.
Total cost: 30,000 gold.
Ego: 5.
Well within easy-save range for the Fighter. I had worked out with my GM that, by spending an appropriate amount of my WBL off camera, they'd start getting more abilities as they 'awakened' and decided my Fighter was worthy of gaining access to the higher level powers (though I had to add normal enhancement-bonus-based effects normally).
And yes. I did name them after exactly what you think I named them after.
I'd probably say, "forget the street, we're going underground." Because honestly, that seems about the only feasible option left to you (due to extradimensional spaces not being available, as you mentioned). Building straight up would likely create a situation where it would tip and/or fall very easily (don't know for certain, haven't taken any engineering classes yet to work it out on my own). So I guess maybe a combination of building both up and down would be best, since going down has its own problems (mainly, needing to dig that far down). Have the strong NPCs (minotaurs, centaurs, probably some of the hell knights) help with the construction, and hire a couple NPC engineers (experts specializing in Knowledge (engineering)) to help figure out how to make it not collapse on itself or the surrounding area. If you have a time crunch, hire some NPC casters with wall of stone and stone shape to help carve things out and make walls, but that also becomes very expensive very quickly.
As for the final question, knock down what's already there; it's not likely very helpful to you.
We in *our* society treat the disabled much differently than they would in a mediveal society
I actually stopped reading what you said right there. As someone pointed out in another thread (can't remember the name, but it was the thread about how slavery related to alignment), this is not a medieval fantasy game. This is a fantasy game with modern ideals set in a period with medieval technology. As such, slavery is generally thought of as wrong, as are many other kinds of criminal punishment and the like that were perfectly acceptable in medieval times.
So, using modern ideals applied to a fantasy world with medieval technology, as long as the person has some way to get around the disadvantage (such as magical bonuses granted by an oracle's curse), they should be, by and large, accepted into many professions and potentially encouraged to go out and do things that would otherwise be considered impossible by someone with that particular disadvantage.
Selgard wrote:
What *I* was talking about was that I would not give the ki benefits from Vow of Silence to a deaf character who did not speak normally before taking the Vow, because the Vow would be meaningless. Similarly, I would not allow a Monk wearing a Ring of Sustenance to gain the ki benefits from a Vow of Fasting. Or a blind Oracle to take the Clouded Vision curse.
Honestly, I think I'd allow the last one, since they don't get anything useful until 10th level (I would certainly rule that the darkvision doesn't work). Unless you're starting there, it's basically just flavor, and even after that, they can't see anything past 30'. That's still a pretty hefty disadvantage, unless everything you have them fight is always within that range. Also, they can't read (such as trying to use a map or read a sign). In which case, I'd wonder why you have everything that close in the first place. The other two examples? I totally agree with you.
I will say that this thread has made me at least willing to give battlefield control (with emergency heals as necessary) a shot in my game. One of the players volunteered to play the healer, but has been getting bored lately; I decided to step in and let him replace his character with something more fun for him, and I'd provide the healer/controller for the group.
Here's hoping it works out.
...With the charge-crazy barbarian. Yeah. We'll see how long that tactic lasts.
First, slavery is not a recent phenomenon, not by a long shot. Secondly, there's more to fantasy worlds than High Middle Ages Europe.
Considering it still happens in some parts of the world today? Yeah, it actually is rather recent. Even discounting that, slavery definitely occurred in more 'civilized' lands within the last couple hundred years, which, considering the tens of thousands of years we have as a species (or even four thousand, depending on your beliefs), it's a relatively recent event in human history.
And yes, there is plenty more to fantasy than the late medieval period in Europe, but slavery existed in far more regions and periods than the late medieval period in Europe.
-Edit- Ah, wait. You meant that it didn't start recently. Well, now I went and made an a** out of myself for nothing. Apologies.
Any insta-win spell really bothers me. On the DM's side it can really mess up a cool, fun, and well-planned encounter. On the player's side you feel a need to take it so that you're optimized/helping the party most/whatever, but you don't WANT to take it both because it really takes away the fun from everyone, and can really mess up a cool, fun, and well-planned encounter. That goes double if it's a spellcaster in the group that's not you. You want them to shine and have fun and not tell them what spells to take, but you also want the rest of the group (including yourself) to have fun. Grgh.
I know it's not totally on-topic, but same goes for some combat maneuvers, especially grappling. If everyone in the party is good at combat, but then the Monk steps up, grabs the BBEG, and ties him up in a round and a half, then it's really lame.
This pretty much explains my view on SoD effects. As a GM, I hate them for the reason you explained. As a player, I hate them because it tends to cheapen the victory for myself (and gets rather boring after a while), and it really sucks when the GM uses them on a player (and a lot of higher CR monsters tend to just have them; and in the same way that it's un-optimal for a player to not use them, it'd be stupid for the monster not to, as well).
That being said, I have no problems with people who like them. I just change how they work in my game to be less of an automatic I-win button.
(honestly I simply hadn't really gotten to them yet).
NO. YOU HAVE TO HAVE EVERYTHING DONE NOW.
But seriously, this is really nice. A great second perspective to AHRE's guide (which was also very helpful). Wish I had something more constructive to say, but I suppose that's why I'm reading guides and not writing them. ;)
Jiggy, I'm having a hard time coming up with any situation where I would actually ASK a player to make a perception check... unless they specifically said they wanted to make one.
The whole point of perception is that if the player succeeds, they notice something, and if they fail, they don't. I can't come up with a way of saying "hey, see if you notice something" that doesn't advertise that there is something to notice.
I can't tell you the number of game situations where we've been in a room or a hallway and the GM says "make a perception check" to one player and within a picosecond every player at the table is saying "I roll a perception check!" The last time this happened we lost 30 minutes of game time because everyone rolled poorly and nobody wanted to leave the area with the mysterious hidden item undiscovered.
The metagame stench was thick that day....
I've found a fairly easy way to solve this problem, because I've definitely seen it as well: Have them randomly roll Perception checks throughout the game. As they enter rooms, as they leave rooms, as they walk through hallways, as they are buying gear from the blacksmith. After a night or two with a bit of time wasted, they eventually pick up that there's nothing there for them to see.
Trap finding and disabling are the only big ones I hide from them. Generally, if they fail the former by more than ten, they have a 50/50 chance of finding a trap whether or not there is one. If they find one that is there, they don't find the right kind.
I will occasionally hide a random Perception roll from them, but they're generally good about roleplaying their lack of perception, instead of being hyperaware of what's going to happen next (i.e., they start picking their nose, they talk really loudly). If it became/becomes a problem, I'd roll it for them.
Otherwise, I normally don't see a reason to hide a check from them. Sometimes there is something they just shouldn't see for whatever reason, but those are very far and few between.
I would suggest the module Seven Swords of Sin. It was originally made for 3.5, but it's not far off from PF rules. Make a couple quick conversions and you're good. I ran my players through it as their introduction to my game, and it was...more difficult than expected, and the description doesn't paint a picture of hope.
Pathfinder Wiki wrote:
Seven Swords of Sin was released at GenCon Indy 2007 and was the featured adventure in the first Gen Con Paizo Publishing "delve" event. The module's plot was written by James L. Sutter but its rooms were written via an internal Paizo "Deadliest Room Contest" in which many of the staff collaborated to make the most viscerally pleasing dungeon possible.
Taken from the link above. It is in all honesty the hardest dungeon I have ever gone through.
