Tyrgrim Stonecleave's page

I've been spending the last few months doing a lot of strength training, and when I was looking at the carrying capacity for pathfinder the other day, something struck me.

People in PF are strong, or people today are weak.

The feat of pushing 100lbs (45kg) overhead is beyond most people I know. It took me a while to achieve that weight for reps (I could do a jerk and get it overhead like that, but the game assumes you can move 20 feet in 6 seconds while bearing your max load). And that is Str 10. Average.

I started with a pair of 35lbs kettlebells (70lbs total), which I was able to get overhead pretty easily. But a lot of my untrained friends would struggle with that, and I don't think any women I know, barring those that actually go to the gym regularly, would be able to do that and walk 20 feet in 6 seconds.

That is Str 7. The minimum allowed strength for a PC when using point-buy. In retrospect, I find it rather hilarious that we've been describing str 7-8 wizards as weaklings barely able to carry their staff and spellbook.

Even now, after months of working out, I find that I am at str 13, tops. I have not tried to lift 150lbs overhead out of fear of strain, so I cannot really say.

I reckon most men who do not work out are around str 6-8, and most women who do not work out are around str 4-7.

Thoughts?

I am about ready to sum up my Kingmaker campaign, and have played through half of Crimson Throne, half of Difficult Terrain (also known as Serpent Skull) and almost half of Jade Regent. And throughout it all, I have noticed something.

Players tend to have an easier time dominating the encounters from levels 2-9 than the latter half of the levels. As a GM I found the encounters in Kingmaker parts 1-4 frustratingly unchallenging compared to what my players could dish out in terms of damage and control. Next to nothing was able to hit, as AC ramps up like crazy as soon as full plates and crafting feats become available, making it so all but the craziest combat monster needs mostly 20s to hit.

The same I observe with the GM when I play. The GM invariably increases the CR so it it APL+3 or higher in order to make fights a challenge (having disposed of XP, making it so we level when he says so, otherwise, we would be 2-3 levels over par).

However, in recent encounters, the players have been more on their toes, with the threat of death being a constant part of combat, forcing them to actually fight for their lives and experience a lack of control.

I completely understand this from a design standpoint; After level 10 you should through the druid/cleric/oracle/paladin be able to bring people back to life. And at 13 even the wizard can pull off this feat with Limited Wish. Death is just a really inconvenient debuff at that point.

Anyone else noticed this, or is it just that we are so war-gamey that stuff seems to be on easy mode until death becomes acceptable by design?

I have a lv7 bard that is mostly focused on buffing in a Jade Regent game, but after a while, the sheer damage output from the artifact-wielding magus and the fire-sorcerer has convinced the GM that he needs to increase the HP of everything. Even if every encounter is APL+3 or higher. (No XP, just level when he says so)

This makes my bard kinda obsolete. The difference I make is eradicated by the increased HP, and our tactics that relies on killing quickly, since we don't have a healer, are kinda thrown out the window.

I have gotten the go-ahead to alter my character, but I am not sure what to do with him. Debuff? Control? I was contemplating going enchantment-heavy to control enemies, since the super-powered opposition would make for good allies.

First bard I have played in PF, so I am not sure what works and doesn't.

I am kinda baffled with the caravan rules when it comes to the hopelessness of fixing the caravan with magic (mending, make whole etc to fix the damage, and/or healing to fix the guards), versus feeding the people (where even the humble Goodberry spell has effect).

On a related note, I could not help raise an eyebrow when my bard with +8 in Knowledge (Engineering) had nothing to offer in terms of hastening the effort. He needs to have crafts and profession skills to contribute. Extensive knowledge on how wagons work does nothing.

Caravan, why are you so hard to fix?

My friend is playing a crossblooded sorcerer, and found to his horror that if the -1 spell known per level is active from the get-go, he will not get his first lv2 spell before lv5, which seems a tad harsh.

I have seen many people follow the old "minimum 1" imperative from earlier similar classes, but would like to know if the same rule goes for this archetype?

Is there a reason for NPCs to ever have the skill, when PCs are "immune" to it? Something I to this day can't say I approve of, as it means the GM has to put on a Broadway performance and actually sway the players to influence their PCs, while they can go "I tell him to do stuff. Get 32 on my skill. What's my argument? Who cares? I have +20!"

The only reason the NPC in question lived was because I handled his social skill rolls behind the screen, and none of them have high enough sense motive to catch his bluff results even on a 20. So I could lie as I felt like, and play the PCs up against each other. But that was all ME as a GM. Had I rolled low enough to warrant them to roll, they would have caught on, and there would likely be another outcome.

(Note: This did not change much except that the goodly cleric of Sarenrae insisted they gave him a chance to redeem himself and not strip him of all his earthly possessions like a raving band of bandits.)

Edit: Spoilers

Hi other GMs of Paizo

Ever had the experience of seeing a major high-level antagonist that you have spent sessions foreshadowing, several hours creating and so forth, only to have it go down on the first or second round in combat due to over-optimized PCs doing 300+ damage a round, or having impossibly high save DCs? Tired of spending hours on making baddies that the PCs take down in 5 minutes?

Boss Template:
- HP Max x2 (Example: A lv15 Antipaladin with Con26, favored class to HP and toughness would have 15d10+150, which would be 227 normally. With this template, he would have 600 hp)
- Immune to daze, death effects, paralysis, petrification, sleep, slow, stun and other save or lose effects.
- +5 to hit, damage, AC, saves and initiative.

CR adjustment: +0. Because optimizing and power-gaming should not get positive reinforcement.

This is something I have been thinking of since as it stands, nothing short of heavily optimized and planned out baddies can hope to challenge my current Kingmaker party. Slap this on just about anything published, and the fight should at least last long enough to be remembered 3 sessions later.

Thoughts?

So, I was having a talk with my players, and we are trying to agree on an interpretation of the use of knowledge skills for identifying monsters.

It says on the Knowledge Skill that you learn "useful info" on 5(common monsters) 10(normal DC) and 15 (Rare/unique monsters)+CR, and then one more per 5 you beat said DC.

I think that each useful bit should be extensive enough to use, but then some think that you learn one ability/weakness per 5. By that logic, knowing everything about a skeleton is a pretty high DC, and against the higher CR monsters, the DC goes bananas if you hope to learn everything, becoming next to impossible to even learn basics, and thus the skill is pretty useless for that purpose.

Is there a good guideline as to how much knowledge should be given per 5 beaten? I have seen some good lore boxes on the PFRD, but they are usually on low-CR monsters, such as orcs and whatnot.

Last session the cavalier insisted that he could ride a hostile wild animal (a mammoth) using the ride and handle animal skills. He has no wild empathy, nor any way to soothe nor compel the beast outside those two skills, but insisted that "people do this in real life", referring to breaking horses and whatnot.

I am pretty sure you need to do something more than that, but since it was "cinematic" and powerwise a "meh" issue, I let it happen so the player could have fun, even if it is pretty obviously not supposed to happen so easily.

Or am I in the wrong? Can you control a beast of animal intelligence merely by climbing on top of it? Do you have to grapple, maybe? (Thinking of bull-riding, as the beast was none too pleased by being forcefully mounted)

Yeah, like I wrote. My PCs capital has a defense score of over 80, and full barracks and garrisons with lv7 or 8 warriors. As the mass combat system is written, an army of 2000 tarrasques riding 2000 great red wyrms need a 20 on the offensive roll to do 1 damage to the defending army. The siege would last until either side had rolled enough 20s to defeat either, likely several hundred, if not thousands of combat phases later.

Sure, they would flee due to the dragons' fear aura, but that is the only way anything could realistically take a city.

This is what made me disregard the whole Mass Combat rules as anything but background stuff I control as a GM, and use Party Battles instead, where the PCs have to react to super elite monsters and NPCs attempts to do stuff to bypass defenses, and just let the tedious "roll 20 to do anything" battles play out in the background.

Because seriously, how in the nine hells are a bunch of lv1-7 warriors going to defend themselves against incorporeal spellcasters with fear auras, or invisible flying monsters with breath weapons, or teleporting strike teams of 5-10 CR10+ dudes?

Defense scores and army combat is all well and dandy against mundane opposition. But when you are throwing marvel super villains and godzilla at them, I just don't see how a bunch of dudes that need a nat 20 only to fail to penetrate DR can make much of a difference.

I am contemplating making a support-spellcaster of sorts for Carrion Crown, but before I choose class and whatnot, I would like to know if there will be downtime to craft magical items during or between parts?

At 4th level, a warrior of the holy light learns to use the power of her faith to bolster her defenses and aid her allies. This class feature replaces the paladin’s spells class feature. A warrior of the holy light does not gain any spells or spellcasting abilities, does not have a caster level, and cannot use spell trigger or spell completion magic items.

At 4th level, the warrior of the holy light gains one additional use of her lay on hands ability per day. She gains one additional use of lay on hands per day for every four levels she attains beyond 4th. She can spend a use of her lay on hands ability to call upon the power of her faith as a standard action. This causes a nimbus of light to emanate from the warrior of the holy light in a 30-foot radius. All allies in this area (including the warrior of the holy light) receive a +1 morale bonus to AC and on attack rolls, damage rolls, and saving throws against fear as long as they remain in the area of light. This power lasts for 1 minute.

At 8th level, the nimbus of light heals the paladin and her allies, curing of them of 1d4 points of ability damage, as per the spell lesser restoration. A creature can only be healed in this way once per day.

I am playing a WoHL, and last night got tapped by a shadow, and later poisoned by a gargantuan spider. As I read this, this ability will come into effect when needed, as it is a continuous emanation. Either immediately when someone within it takes ability damage, or at worst, on my turn.

My GM had a different opinion, saying that it comes into effect only on the round I start it up.

Not only is this next to useless for anything but post-combat use, as it both bars me from being able to heal when needed, instead demanding I either wait until people have taken ability damage, forfeiting the use of the aura as a buff until that happens, or wasting even more Lay on Hands and standard actions. And depletes even more of a limited resource that the paladin relies on for survival. Sure, he gets a couple of more uses, but nowhere near enough to spam them on lesser restoration.

It just does not measure up power-wise in my mind. A regular paladin can get a relatively cheap wand of Lesser Restoration for post-combat use, or cast it as a lv1 spell. The power doesn't even mimic the spell, as it only restores 1d4 ability damage, but not fatigue.

So could anyone shed some clarity on this? Preferably a developer, but close to unanimous reinforcement of one side should likely decide as well.

One of my friends play a magus, and he has the APG spell Elemental Touch.

What he and the GM came to disagree upon last night was if Elemental Touch got overwritten if you cast another spell, like if you were holding a charge of a touch spell.

Unlike every other touch spell in the game, Elemental Touch has a range of "Personal" and Target: You instead of "creature touched".

Upon completing the casting of this spell, elemental energy infuses your hands.

Choose an energy type: acid, cold, electricity, or fire. You gain a melee touch attack causing 1d6 points of damage of that energy type, along with a special effect described below.

This leads me to understand that unlike holding the charge of the basic touch spells, you instead gain a new feature, which functions independently of other spells.

Though to be sure, I'd like to get an official ruling on this.

Scenario: Will Wizardton casts Magic Missile with 5 missiles against Simon Sorcery, who has Mirror Image going. Each missile need to roll against the mirror images to see if they hit Simon or an image.

Now, if Simon also has Shield going, will shield protect against the missiles hitting HIM? Or all the missiles, including the ones that hits the spell effect, and not him, making the Images impervious as well?

Out of curiosity, when you make a character, what is important to you?

I was reading one of the longish threads earlier, and was thinking "What would it be like to play with this person, or that person?". There are many takes on what is important in a party, RP vs optimize, and so forth.

Even around our gaming table, we see very different approaches on this. Some make quite optimized characters, while others make them more all-round and fluff-oriented.

Personally, I like to find a balance between optimization and fluff. Lately I have been playing a lot of charisma based characters, (a sorcerer and a paladin) both of them with back-story and fluff that took me hours to cook up. But I also optimize to a point, as I want to be REALLY good at my niche in the party, preferably the best in the group. But I never go for 7/20 builds (my sorcerer had Cha18 at lv1, my paladin had 16 as his highest at lv1, and only one 8 with either character as the lowest stat). I might if we ever do a 15 point buy though.

I prefer to stay the course with my class, but find that I often dip 1 level into another class to pursue fluff. My sorcerer was a dragon disciple, which pretty much equals dipping barbarian to some degree, and my paladin, who is a Tian samurai type, dipped one level of Monk).

I have a question regarding insanities and dependency on alcohol and drugs. I have noticed that you can cure dependency with Remove Disease, which leads me to the logical conclusion that a paladin or monk of sufficient level is immune to the adverse effects of both.

However, I am not so sure with insanity. Are paladins immune, as they are diseases of the mind (or maybe immunity to fear is more relevant?) or is insanity something apart from both fear and disease?

Quick question: When someone who has sneak attack uses scorching ray at high enough level to fire multiple rays, he does get a sneak attack on each hit if he is entitled to it, right? (Just like rapid shot with a bow in the same parameters)

Doing the math on it, I come to understand that for an "optimized" Arcane Trickster (going 3 rogue/3 wizard, taking the "magical knack" trait) deals roughly 20% more damage when getting off a sneak attack as a single-class wizard would, (and this is kinda the AT's schtick) until high level play when the Sneak Attack tips in his favor. But then again, the single class wizard counts Scorching Ray amongst the least of his offensive powers, sooo...

And yes, sure, I am aware that it could be abused with obscure third party spells that allow for buckets of separate attack roles, but we are playing core pathfinder, meaning Scorching Ray is about as good as it gets.

So, my wife is playing a rogue, focused on stealth. Six levels in, we discover that the ROGUE can no longer take Hide in Plain Sight as an advanced talent.

Why!? I mean, this is just wrong. The ranger gets Hide in Plain Sight. Should not the sneakiest class in the game get this ability? I was thinking "someone must have screwed up somewhere, because let's face it, as stealth works, you NEED this one in order to use it at all, barring magic or circumstance" and checked the erratas and the APG, but nope. No HIPS.

What's going on?

I am currently GMing kingmaker, and playing in Difficult Terrain. (Serpent Skull)

Kingmaker party is mostly optimized, though not glaringly so, as I gave them 25 point buy, let them use 3.X materials, and they are 5 players. Nuff said, that one was a cake-walk when I was not "compensating" by adding +2-5 to all statistics and upping HP by 20-50%. Made the non-optimized cavalier suffer a little, but they were rarely if ever in any real danger. I attributed the ease to my ignorance of APs, and eventually went core. Now, they still mop the floor with most anything, and only the odd lucky fiend getting a duplicate of itself, or cyclops supported by absurd rolling on my part has been able to claim lives. Except for one weird poison fluke.

But anyways, my real topic:

We are playing a rather un-optimized party in Serpent Skull, using 20 point buy. I am a samurai-flavored paladin/monk in medium armor, switching between archery and 2handing a katana (bastard sword) or longspear. Highest stat was a 16, and no 7s on creation. Same deal with he rest of the party, except the rogue, who started with 18 dex. Also, we have NO arcane caster. Now, I can already hear Codzilla and a few others cringe, but bear with me.

We made it through the first part rather well, except for a few flukes on the GMs side (he rolls ABSURDLY many nat20s, like at least 30 per session, often close to 50), as most enemies had low AC, low to hit and do little damage. Few relevant casters to speak of before end-boss. End dungeon has been beefed something fierce by GM, and we were denied the level we technically earned by being active on the exploration front, so it was kinda tricky, mostly because we rolled laughably bad.

Part 2 comes along, GM feels that he needs to hold us back until the very last moment when the AP says we should level up, beefs enemies, restrict magical item availability, even the cheapest stuff in cities with well over 10k base value. And still he thinks the encounters are too easy, complaining that we hit too easily, and it is too hard to hit us back.

Derail:

Now we are level 6. We have gotten our AC up to 22 or so on average, getting it up to 25 or so with buffs, and he claims that we have too good AC. The only REALLY scary encounters have been surprise attacks (90% of all encounters) by creatures of higher CR, or as mentioned in derail above. Otherwise, there has been some attempts at domination, but we have mostly made our saves, and asking a paladin that also adheres to Bushido to do nearly ANYTHING except standing still saying nothing gives a new save with bonuses, which so far has been the best reward for having a strict Code of Conduct.

This might all seem like a complaint, but in all honesty, it is not. I applaud the notion of setting the bar at a level where people can play characters, and take it easy until there is a reasonable chance to be able to bring people back, before ramping up the difficulty curve. Especially considering the boons and the spirit totems.

So yeah, APs easy? Or just us that work well/GM expectations of difficulty unfounded?

Whip:
A whip deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher. The whip is treated as a melee weapon with 15-foot reach, though you don't threaten the area into which you can make an attack. In addition, unlike most other weapons with reach, you can use it against foes anywhere within your reach (including adjacent foes).

Using a whip provokes an attack of opportunity, just as if you had used a ranged weapon.

Flanking:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Question:
Can you benefit from flanking (and get a sneak attack) with a whip when there is an ally on the opposite side of the enemy? I know you will not help the other guy flank since you do not threaten.

One of my players is playing a universalist wizard with a truckload of item creation feats, and wants to create an item to increase the uses of his Metamagic Mastery ability. We have agreed that +4 levels is a typical ruling for such items (Silversmite Bracers, Monk's Belt, Phylactery of Positive Channeling etc) for 10-16k.

However, these abilities, unlike Metamagic Mastery, are all abilities that you get at lv1. This makes me think it should be more pricey.

Someone got a suggestion for a price?

I am playing a bard in Serpent's Skull, and want some clarity in the favored class option of the APG that states that I can learn a new spell instead of getting 1hp or a skillpoint, but it needs to be one level lower than my highest level of spells.

Now which of the following three scenarios are true for me on lv1:

1: I get an extra cantrip, aka a lv 0 spell, known

2: I get a level 1 spell known

3: I cannot take this option before I can cast level 2 spells

So, I am playing around with a bard concept for Serpent Skull, and I am getting rather annoyed with the Versatile Performance ability.

I plan for my character to be an orator and wise-ass (comedy), but if I am to get the benefit of versatile performance on the relevant skills, I would be foolish to have ANY social skills at level 1, since I am effectively throwing skill-points into the void. Not to mention the silliness of being completely hopeless in bluff and intimidate on lv5, but a master at lv6.

*sigh*

Still good though, I could just have a single/few ranks in bluff/intimidate until I get the versatile performance, and cut my losses.

Can we have retraining of skills back in core plz?

Currently playing blood for blood, and last night the players were taking on the remainding Stroons after they had done a scry-napping of the Baron while he was sleeping, killing the annoying dog and saving Lord Numesti while at it, due to the most absurdly lucky teleport-mishap in my 17 year career as a GM. Cue Baroness Pavetta's take-over, after she has Imeckus kidnap the PCs kids as ransom to make their cleric cast Raise Dead on her precious dog, Jewel.

As one might expect, the PCs didn't take kindly to having their offspring kidnapped over a dog, and the next couple of days, they learned of the Baroness' birthday/take-over party, infiltrating the newly renamed Fort Stroon, using Phase Door to get through the outer walls, and Invisibility to get to the parlor.

Her guests retreated as they realized that there would be blood as she shrieked for the guards to take down the dog-murderers. Imeckus was predicting this, as he started his own scrying, launching spells through an illusory wall. Now comes the most epic turn-over I have seen in a good while, which made me swear to post it and share it will everyone.

The wizard casts a Fear spell, hitting some summoned monsters, the guards, the Baroness (who made her save, appropriately enough), clearing the room for the fighters to move in. Marcus "Face me, monster!!" Muri jumps up on the table, and bull-rushes Baroness Pavetta's giant cake into her face, going "HAPPY BIRTHDAY!" and when the Baroness cleared her face he leaned in and added "Sorry I blew out the candles for ya."

I am starting a conjurer going Genie Binder in Legacy of Fire sometime soon, and plan to have my character be a pragmatist, approaching the "True Neutral" alignment as I see good and evil as extremes, and rather than considering the moral nature of what I summon (be they celestials or fiends), I rather focus on the potential of the individual creature, owing neither parties allegiance nor fealty.

On top of this, I intend to have an imp serving me as my improved familiar. Since there are no paladins in the party, and the imp's ability to assume any animal form it chooses, this should not be hard to keep from the eyes of the good aligned characters in the party, and keep it from being common knowledge. I know consorting with fiends is far from good, which is just about what I am hoping for, since Genie Binder requires you to be non-good.

As a person, I intend to play him as a normal human being, offering respects to Nethys, due to his influence over magic, but otherwise somewhat detached from the whole "GOD WILLS IT!" mentality, seeing the deities as little more than exceedingly powerful versions of the very creatures he pulls down from the heavens, or up from the hells. Certainly, this will create some tension between myself and the cleric of Sarenrae, but I am not going to play him as an evil man. He has a conscience, knows right from wrong, but don't feel motivated nor compelled to act in the name of one against the other. He knows the value of a life, and would rather have friends than enemies, but would not risk his own life to better that of another, unless there is gain to be had. He is not above feeling love, responsibility and have a streak of genuine empathy for the weak and downtrodden, since he was born with a muscle-degenerating illness, leaving him physically as weak as a child, and as one of over a dozen siblings, being physically weak left him bullied.

Now, should I keep him Neutral, as I originally plan, or should he be/become evil? Is pragmatism a good enough reason to stave off the evil brand, since I am indeed summoning based on the creatures' abilities, and thus "using" them for my own needs? (one could argue that a conjurer should be barred from being good, since making celestials fight for you can be construed as morally questionable. This ain't Pokemon, where you gather "friends" :P)

In another campain, the GM said that he employed a system to keep track of people's alignment by attributing points to their actions (akin to Neverwinter Nights and such), which can make me stay the course as long as I have some balance in the creatures I summon. (Summon Monster states that summoning a celestial is a good act, and summoning a fiendish creature is an evil act)

Last night, I had a monster, posing as a hurt sheperd trapped in a cave on the side of a deep ravine, cast mass suggestion on the unaware players, outside their line of sight, and forced the players to roll saves (I don't like depriving my players of being able to roll saves, and rarely do their rolls in secret). One player asked if he could tell that someone tried to mess with his head.

My ruling last session was "No", as I can sorta see several problems with this:
- If he does, enchantment could no longer be subtle, even with still/silent spell metamagic. Anyone who have been charmed/compelled would automatically KNOW that they were affected, making an already weak school of specialization even weaker.
- Would make sense motive rather redundant.
- You can roll spellcraft to identify effects, in this case at +10 DC, since the caster was out of sight. (The wizard made his check and the players figured it out this way, a solution I think is good)

But, I want to know if there is an official ruling on this.

I am having what I perceive as a problem in my campain:

Abuse of the ready and delay actions. I am not talking about "Rogue readies action until fighter gets into flanking position", or "Delay until after caster so I stay out of fireball". Those are obvious actions for anyone working in a party.

I am talking about exceptional hive-mind war-gaming where the party works in tandem even when there is no Telepathic Bond to serve as justification of doing so in-game. An example of play is:

- Rogue delays until after monster, moves in to position, readies attack until fighter comes into flanking position.
- Fighter delays until after wizard, since the wizard asks him to. (without being able to explain exactly what is going on)
- Cavalier charges, and benefits from flanking.
- Wizard casts benign transposition or one of his 100 other spells to alter the battlefield.
- Fighter and cavalier changes place, rogue and fighter delays kicks in, attacks.
- Monster is now usually dead. Rogue delays until after wizard
- Monster 2 acts according to its nature.
- Cavalier delays until after fighter.
- Wizard casts some obscure spell that lets him short-range teleport 2 PCs wherever he wants within range. Places fighter and rogue in flank on monster 2.
- Rogue delay kicks in, takes full attack.
- Fighter does the same. If monster lives, he 5-foots so the cavalier can charge again.

Etc etc. Tactics is one thing, but this kind of stuff is waaaaaaaaay beyond "We train during downtime"

So instead of doing the same, having monsters do hive-mind tactics, ready bull-rushes, awesome blows and whatnot to foil flanking because I as the GM is aware of their intentions, and completely wash away my last vestige of sustained disbelief, I was thinking of making ready and delay actions similar to concentration, and if you are struck by a hard blow while reading, you might lose that action. Mechanics will come when I figure them out.

Thoughts on this?

I am planning on playing a paladin, and was wondering something. If you are able to detect the presence of evil, but fail you perception check against it, are you still surprised? I would rule that if you get three rounds worth of detection, you are DEFINITELY not surprised, as you know where the source of evil is hiding.

I know abilities such as scent and blindsense helps you find hidden creatures, and before you spend the time actively sniffing it out, detect evil and scent/blindsense are essentially doing the same.

I have been GMing Kingmaker for a while now, and the players are at lv6, and little over half-way through Rivers Run Red. So far, it has been going rather well, but there are some interesting possibilities that have presented themselves before me:

Villains getting away to haunt the players another day.

So far, Tartuk the kobold sorcerer, and Rigg Gargadilly, the quickling rogue, have made their escape from the clutches of the PCs. And as the players expand their influence, I find that having some antagonists may provide some entertainment.

I am in the middle of making my very own "League of (escaped) Evil" to haunt the players. Tartuk and Rigg are both tricksters in their own right, and I am looking for some suggestions on how I can best make the lives of the PC's sour with these two insufferable little cretins.

(I have leveled up Tartuk to 7, since he has had to fend for himself in a now human-controlled land, and equipped him with mostly manipulation and divination for his new spells known, as well as fireball, since I imagine he would spite-blast a few herds of livestock, a random caravan, etc.)