Search Posts
Hello, I bought the fifth expansion to the PACG Rise of the Runelord campaign and found that the card backs differ significantly from the previous sets. This creates a huge problem, since it's now rather obvious when the Henchmen etc. can and can't be the top card of a location. How do I go about getting a replacement? I can ofc provide pictures if you want. Thanks,
One way to make tracking mundane ammunition more fun while toning down the bookkeeping, is to tie ammo expenditure to your attack roll. For arrows it might be: if you roll a natural 1 or 2 on your ranged attack, you expend half a quiver (10 arrows). This method averages out to the same expenditure with more riding on the outcome of every individual die roll. Yes, it could also result in your new quiver running out in round 1, but them's the breaks. At the very least you can tie the 50% chance of losing an arrow on a miss to the original attack roll: Odd, the arrow is lost; even it can be recovered.
@nate: Thanks, but Amazing Initiative should take care of the action economy problem, shouldn't it? She is actually considering the sylvan bloodline. :) I'm aiming at having them end up as lvl 16/tier 8. @Joshua: Right with you on the fixed leveling points, that's how I always do it. How would you adjust treasure? Divide in half?
Thanks for the responses. :) I'm aiming to keep everything as close to RAW as possible, so 15-pts build (though I might allow 20), no gestalts, etc. My goal is to add just the right amount of Mythic to offset the disadvantage of having only two PCs. Starting out at Mythic tier 2 would fix the action economy for them and give them some extra control + survivability, so at first glance it seems the obvious choice. However, I'm afraid that abilities like Absorb Blow (spend a surge, reduce damage received by 5/tier) would make them invincible at low levels. They are pretty good at optimizing, so I'm not afraid they'll show up with "tier 6"-classes. Right now they are looking at a Human Seeker Sorceress (Archmage) and her Nagaji Fighter (Guardian) bodyguard. The sorceress will be the party's face, max out UMD for divine magic items, and deal with traps (Seeker archetype). The fighter will guard her. ;P
I've asked this within a thread in the "general" section, but I'm afraid that thread got buried, so I'll ask it again here. I'm planning on DM-ing a group of two players through the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition (but it could have been any non-Mythic adventure path), allowing the players to create Mythic characters. Due to time constraints, I'd prefer not to have to adjust anything on my end. Does anyone have any experience trying something like this? I'd love to hear how it turned out for you. What are the pitfalls I need to be aware of? I'm especially concerned about the abilities that have a clause vs. non-mythic enemies (like Mythic Hexes). How do you deal with them? Would it be fair to have every enemy with CR > APL receive the Mythic Companion feat for free so those powers won't work 100%? Also, how would you handle the first levels? Start the PCs off at level 1 and hand them 2-4 mythic tiers immediately? Or start them out as lvl 2 tier 1 and try to keep the 2 levels : 1 tier balance?
I'm very interested in how this is working out for everyone. What are the pitfalls a DM needs to be aware of when letting two mythic PCs tackle an unmodified non-Mythic AP, like the updated Rise of the Runelords one? I'm especially concerned about the abilities that have a clause vs. non-mythic enemies (like Mythic Hexes). How do you deal with them? Also, how would you handle the first levels? Start the PCs off at level 1 and hand them 2-4 mythic tiers immediately? Or start them out as lvl 2 tier 1 and try to keep the 2 levels : 1 tier balance?
So then the conclusion is RAW on this topic is a mess and we should move to the house rules section, because we will never get a satisfactory FAQ response?
Just checked, and in 3.0 this is exactly how darkness worked: it created a globe of darkness, impenetrable by darkvision.
Wasn't this certain Drow Ranger born in the AD&D era? I can't remember, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's how darkness worked back in the day...
I'm fine with this. However, Zordon, I still see your argument with Wrath as a wash, since according to RAW you were wrong.
I wonder what Ozzy would have to say about all of this. When uttered in an area of ambient normal light, he'd have to change his catch phrase "I'm the f****** prince of darkness" into "I'm the f****** prince of dim light".
I didn't read it yet, but maybe this thread can help.
I think the "defaults to the ambient natural light level" passage decides the matter. Why use the word "default" in the context of increasing the light level, if you don't intend it to include sunrods that are already present before DD is cast?
As the posts are coming in so fast, I'm starting to lose track of who is responding to who. Please use quotes or address the poster you are responding to. Thanks!
Yes he can sub out. You use your bab + attack bonuses + the proper stat mod (dex or str normally). I think you're having a flashback to 3.X. :) In PF, you alway use CMB to resolve manoeuvres.
Yes, that's what it means. From the description of Flurry of Blows: A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. He would use his CMB, just like always.
Yes, with the added detail that the Sun (and Moon and Stars etc) are not mundane light sources.Agreed 100%. :) Indeed. Nor are they magical. They are natural, which is something in-between. I like that. :)
Agreed 100%. :)
Clearly, this means we should get the wagered money and split it amongst ourselves. Clearly. :)
zavarov both seem correct. Thank you. And I don't expect you to copy paste. Okay, well, like you, I and all other posters have been saying, Wrath's interpretation is wrong. As for your take on things, strictly by RAW you are wrong (see the posts from Ansel, thejeff and me), but many agree with your interpretation of RAI (see Matthew Morris's posts). Bottom line, IMHO you are both wrong, so the wager is void. Had I been your DM, I would have ruled that your darkvision didn't work (IF I had remembered the nonmagical light source clause, which in my first answer to the OP I obviously didn't), which would be in Wrath's favor. However, since Wrath more or less came to his conclusion by accident (the right answer for the wrong reason), that would be in your favor. End result: a wash.
@ZordonAndAlpha Holy crap, that's a lot of text. I'm not going to copy-paste it and will read it all, then hopefully be able to give you a better reply (especially since there seems to be some $$ riding on the outcome). As a first reaction, I think I can see why you two got into a big argument. You are arguing two completely different things. You: "Nonmagical light that is in an area before the DD is cast, is NOT nullified. Therefore darkvision works in an area with torches." He: "The spell says "(...) even creatures with darkvision cannot see within the spell's confines." So no matter what the ambient lighting or the source, the spell nullifies darkvision." Is this correct?
Your interpretation is reasonable enough, except it doesn't address that the ranger wasn't aware of the goblin. If it were a PC in the barrel, I'm sure she'd argue that she was entitled to a surprise round. Or at the very least to an initiative roll. While researching this, I came across the example of two people playing "slap your hand". One player holds his hand out (this is the ranger), the other player (this is the rogue) tries to slap it, while the first player tries to pull it away in time. So the first player clearly is readying an action ("As soon as the other guy moves his hand, I pull mine away"), but from experience I can tell you he won't always succeed.
The highlighted part seems to disagree, as read so long as you are within this dark space your darkvision is nullified.Yea, the main thing he complains is the fact that his dark vision should work within the confines of spell, solely because of some preconceived notion that the torch should just drop it down into a darkness and misses the line in the spell where "darkvision does not work within the confines of the spell" clause. Ya I saw where he thinks that because grammatically the deeper darkness reads as where the dim light and below all become supernatural darkness reads like a clause that super cedes everything. And as far as ambient light goes, for the argument it is a windowless room so darkness as ambient light. So indeed your take is that darkvision would not work in an area of Deeper Darkness with normal ambient lighting. The point you are confused on (and it's an understandable mistake) is what "this" is referring to in the quote: "Areas of dim light and darkness become supernaturally dark. This functions like darkness, but even creatures with darkvision cannot see within the spell's confines." "This" should be read as "the areas that were previously dim light or darkness and have been reduced two steps by Deeper Darkness." "This" is not meant to include all areas of dim light and lower that result from casting Deeper Darkness." Otherwise even bright light would be turned into dim light by Deeper Darkness (which is correct) and nullify darkvision (which is incorrect). Edit: thejeff got there faster. :)
Yea, the main thing he complains is the fact that his dark vision should work within the confines of spell, solely because of some preconceived notion that the torch should just drop it down into a darkness and misses the line in the spell where "darkvision does not work within the confines of the spell" clause. Ya I saw where he thinks that because grammatically the deeper darkness reads as where the dim light and below all become supernatural darkness reads like a clause that super cedes everything. And as far as ambient light goes, for the argument it is a windowless room so darkness as ambient light. In a windowless room, the torch is irrelevant once you cast Deeper Darkness. Like Ansel said, the spell description clearly states that nonmagical light sources don't function in Deeper Darkness. So first they are canceled, returning the ambient light to darkness. Then Deeper Darkness kicks that to Darkness (0) -> Supernatural Darkness (-1) -> (Even Darker than) Supernatural Darkness (-2). His darkvision won't work. In your OP, you didn't base your argument on the nullification of nonmagical light sources, but on the fact that the spell description says "anything below dim light is magical darkness." This leads me to believe you are arguing that in a field on a normal day (ambient light: normal), darkvision would not work in an area filled with Deeper Darkness. But it does.
The Light spells start from the existing lighting conditions. They do not suppress equal or lower level Darkness spells in the same way Darkness spells suppress Light spells. I'm afraid I don't quite follow. Both counter or dispel their opposite, no? So: Darkness + Light: -0 level from ambient
As an aside, couldn't you argue that the sun is also a nonmagical source of light, so the ambient light level of every place that doesn't have magical lighting is darkness?You have discovered why, RAW, the darkness rules are broken. :-) Hehe. So how do we fix them? By treating the sun as a special case, and keeping - say - a sunrod to the RAW?
Ah, yeah, I forgot about that. So it seems you were right after all, but for the wrong reason. ;) As an aside, couldn't you argue that the sun is also a nonmagical source of light, so the ambient light level of every place that doesn't have magical lighting is darkness?
Your friend is correct. Torches provide normal lighting which is lowered two steps to darkness, not supernatural darkness. However, this is only true fo the first 20 ft. around the torch. The next 20 ft. the torch provides dim light and that gets lowered to supernatural darkness. You misquoted the spell, which explains your confusion. The spell doesn't say "anything below dim light is supernatural darkness", it says "Bright light becomes dim light and normal light becomes darkness. Areas of dim light and darkness become supernaturally dark." You should read that as "areas that START OUT as dim light or darkness TURN INTO supernatural darkness." You shouldn't read it as "After lowering the light level by two steps, all areas that are now dim light or lower become supernaturally dark." I do see how you could make that mistake, though.
As Pirate and Grick stated in the other thread, Cleave is not an attack action. It is a Use Feat action. Overhand Chop only modifies an attack action or a charge, therefore it won't modify Cleave.
Hmm. For the first question, I have two remarks: 1. Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action while falling would call for a concentration check to pull off. I'd say falling qualifies as at least "violent motion", which would give a DC of 15+spell level. 2. If you pull the spell off, you now have a Fly speed. I'm not sure if that's enough to halt your descent a la feather fall, just as a swim speed wouldn't protect you from a rapid current. Maybe a Fly skill check is in order, using the Wind Effects on Flight table. I'm sure someone else can answer this. As for the second question, the spell description clearly states you create a hemisphere, not a sphere, so that would mean a dome with a hole on the bottom (though you could make a case for casting the dome upside down, leaving the hole on the top).
Have you looked here?
Maybe a third scenario can help shed some light on the issue, as it comes up regularly in my games and I'm always at a loss how to resolve it. 3) A ranger and a fighter are searching through some barrels in a warehouse. The ranger says "I will cover the fighter while he searches." He draws his bow and takes a Ready action to shoot anything that pops out of the barrels. The fighter walks around the barrels so he isn't in the way of the shot when he opens them. A goblin rogue is hiding inside one of the barrels. It is very much aware of the PCs and readies an action to pop out of the barrel (a 5 ft step) and sneak attack the fighter as soon as he opens it. Both PCs fail their perception check to see the rogue peering through a peephole, so they are unaware of it. How will this play out? Step 1) Fighter opens the goblin's barrel, triggering the goblin's readied action.
Actually I think this example illustrates my confusion better than the previous two, so I'm looking forward to hear how you'd rule this.
For PFS game this is question the devs would have to answer. Their answer was to ban the kilt from PFS play (see "Additional Resources").
I have a question on the Armored kilt. I am wondering is it possible to combine an armored kilt with a half plate armor and still get the +1AC bonus from it. From the description of Armored Kilt (bolding by me): When you add an armored kilt to a suit of light armor, the set counts as medium armor. Likewise, a kilt and medium armor counts as heavy armor. Adding an armored kilt to heavy armor has no effect.Secondly, I was hoping to get an official ruling from you on weather or not the armored kilt can be separately enchanted if added to a suit of armor. Yes, the armored kilt can be enchanted separately. However, since both enchantments grant an enhancement bonus and enhancement bonuses don't stack, only the highest one counts.
Logical as this sequence sounds, what confuses me is that according to my interpretation of RAW initiative is only rolled at the beginning of combat. So either the dogs aren't flatfooted (since they have taken actions during combat, using them to run towards the PCs, albeit unseen) or initiative should not be rolled until the first dog rounds the corner. That would however be weird in light of the PCs Readying (which is a special initiative action, so initiative must have already been rolled).
Even after more than a decade of playing 3.X, 4E and Pathfinder, I sometimes still find myself baffled by certain “start of combat” situations. Surprise, initiative, awareness, stealth – it all becomes a blur. So I’ve decided to post two situations from recent play and see how those of you with a firmer handle on things cope with them. 1) A party of PCs is resting in a dungeon, when they suddenly hear loud barking in the distance, rapidly drawing closer. The PCs draw their bows and aim at the only entrance into their resting spot. How does this play out, assuming the dogs that are racing towards them know the PCs are there (a druid told them / they have picked up their scent)? My problem: Technically both sides are aware of the other, even though they haven’t seen each other yet. So no surprise round. But did combat start already? If so, then the dogs aren’t flat-footed when they round the corner and are treated to a hail of arrows. This seems weird to me. Also, when exactly is initiative rolled in this example? As soon as the PCs hear the barking? 2) In a premade module I’m about to run, the party will be ambushed by a group of bandits in a city. The bandits plan to attack in a crowded street, hiding among the innocent bystanders until they make their move. Since the bandits have been trailing the PCs, the module states that every PC gets to roll Perception to recognize their stalkers in the crowd. A success means the PC gets to act in the surprise round. Important is that in the bandits’ tactics section, it is noted that the wizard that leads the bandits spends his first round casting slow on the party, thereby “initiating the combat” (quoted from the book). My problem: What happens if (some of) the PCs make their perception check and roll a higher initiative than the wizard? Has combat started? If so, why? After all, the PCs don’t know the people they recognize are about to attack them. If not, then why did everyone have to roll initiative? I'm probably just overthinking things. I'm sure you guys can clear this mess that is my brain up for me. :)
Does the combo in the title work? The Sylvan bloodline grants the sorcerer an Animal Companion with the "share spells" ability. "Share spells" states that "the druid may cast spells on her animal companion even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the companion's type (animal)". This seems to indicate Enlarge Person is fine. What makes me unsure is the next sentence in the description: "Spells cast in this way must come from a class that grants an animal companion". Go? No go?
Yeah, she knows about the standard action to activate and keep up Detect Evil. The party is in a haunted house and has already encountered several, so before they enter a room she scans it. Specific example: she scans a room with a piano in it and detects evil on it. I know the piano is haunted; pressing any of the keys triggers the haunt. She walks up to the piano, touches it with her wand and goes into exorcist mode. The text indeed states that the haunt can only be hurt by positive energy, the exact wording to me doesn't seem to say that the energy can only be applied in the surprise round. It sounds more like it's saying "if you want to prevent the haunt from manifesting, the only way to do so is to positive energy bomb it in the surprise round, unless it has a specific weakness".
I have an inquisitor in my party with Detect Alignment and a good perception score. The haunt rules state: "Detect undead or detect alignment spells of the appropriate type allow an observer a chance to notice a haunt even before it manifests (allowing that character the appropriate check to notice the haunt, but at a –4 penalty)." Since she pretty much always has Detect Evil on, she notices a lot of haunts before they manifest. My question is, can she now positive energy the not-yet-manifested haunt into oblivion, basically using a wand of cure light wounds to exorcise every haunt she discovers?
So here it is and it's one gorgeous book. I've skimmed through it, read some choice chapters and so far I have to say this is a definite improvement over 3.5. However, like others have also stated, it feels more like 3.6 than 3.75 and that's mainly because 90% of the work seems to focus on the stuff that was already good to begin with. The classes and races have been rebalanced, skills and feats tidied up and compressed, troublesome spells nerfed or made less complex. There is a lot of good stuff here, it feels clean, and I'm especially impressed with the combat maneuvre overhaul. Still my main gripe with 3rd edition remains: high level complexity. Apart from the Vital Strike feat chain, which gives an alternative to the endless rolling of iterative attacks, I just don't see how PFRPG improves what imo has always been this edition's weak spot. Am I missing something? Was it maybe decided at some point that simplifying high-level combat could not be accomplished alongside the goal of backward compatibility? Or is it just deemed a lost cause (the fact that the APs still end around level 14 seems to point that way)?
I agree; this would make the stat block even easier to read as you're running combats. Yep, this would defo be the way to go imho.
NOTE: One thing this preview also shows is how the format of the PF RPG stat blocks is pretty much unchanged from what we've been doing. One more way that compatibility with pre PFRPG stuff and post PFRPG stuff should be easy to handle... I like the format a lot, but I would like it even better if you'd separate feats into "feats that give combat options" and "feats that don't give combat options" like Monte Cook did with Ptolus (he used the terms "crucial feats" and "other feats"). After all, feats like Toughness and Weapon Focus already are implemented in the stats, wheras feats like Combat Expertise and Cleave are not.
Thanks for your answers. Spoiler: The bell towers are mentioned in the second paragraph on page 3. The blackmail scheme is also on page 3, second column, paragraph beginning with "Recognizing his own follishness". The 30 minute time limit is on page 10 right at the beginning of Act 5.
I will DM a group that really gets into the backstory, that's why I need to get my story straight beforehand. :-) I'm cool with the "bright people can do very stupid things" explanation. I'm thinking of twisting it so that Yargos and his friends (the three guys that are chained to him in Act I) are history fanatics who like to re-enact historic events. So they dress up as Old Taldorans, light the beacons and rush to the bell towers pretending they are the saboteurs (of course not with the intention of sabotaging anything). Imagine their surprise when they witness the Black Echelon actually destroying the towers. I still don't see how Nessian gets involved in all of this. Maybe he's a fanatic Taldoran and one of his goons overhears Yargos and his friends in the Drowning Depths as they plan the event. He reports this to Nessian, who orders the goon to steal the book. As the War Hounders follows the group around waiting for the right opportunity, they also witness the attack. They then take the book from the group and bring it to Nessian. He then tells them to erase the traces for the reason you gave. Nessian's motivation now becomes not to blackmail the city, but to carry out the Silent Tide, mistakingly believing that this would be in the interest of Taldor. Sound reasonable?
I'm curious how other DM's answered the following questions: Spoiler: 1. Yargos replicates the codes on a lark. Why on earth would he do this? And what happened next? Did the Black Echelon destroy the bell towers? 2. Yargos then tries to alert the city. I take it nobody believed his story? If the bell towers were destroyed, why didn't they believe him? 3. He then tries to hurl the codebook into the sea. However, Nessian "intervenes". How exactly did Nessian learn of the book and how did he intervene? 4. Nessian later sends his goons to kill Yargos. Why didn't he kill the historian immediately? 5. Act 1 starts at early evening. Act 4 at sunrise. Since the PCs are under time pressure, I assume they didn't sleep. Where did the time go then? Surely act 2 and 3 don't take all night to complete? 6. Nessian plans to blackmail the city. However, it is made clear that unless the abort code is given within half an hour of the cathedral attack, the city is doomed. So how exactly does he plan to go about his blackmailing in that short timeframe? 7. For that matter, is it wisdom to be encamped just outside the city when you summon an army of undead to sack it? :-)
One thing, one thing... imo the biggest priority is making high level play run almost as smoothly as low level both for the players and the DM. But that's a little vague, so since I have to limit it to one specific wish: Less buffs. Condense the types, impose a buff limit, grant players better stats so you can get rid of the Big Six and Bull Strength etc. -whichever way you do it, just please lessen the number crunch at high level. Thanks for listening!
Lethality is a cost. If you enter combat or fall into a trap, there should be a risk and thus a cost for failing and in vanilla D&D the only possible cost is death. You used to have magic item destruction and level loss, but those were few and far between and have more or less been taken out of the game entirely. One of the biggest dilemma's in roleplaying games is that while you need to have the risk of death in the game, nobody likes to lose his character. Epecially to a (series of) bad roll(s). Hero Points or whatever you want to call them can provide a perfect middle ground. Enter combat or fall into a trap and you could lose a Hero Point. Lose a Hero Point and you are one step closer to death. But that's just one version of the Hero Point. It might not be to your liking, but for me it beats the alternative of having the game come to a crashing halt while the PCs run for a cleric who can cast True Resurrection. But then I am a DM who never ever fudges a die roll or tones down an encounter and I only allow a character to be resurrected once. My Hero Points also have other uses (I am currently using Monte Cook's system from AE) which give my players a lot of extra options (extra options are good!). That's what a good Hero Points system does imo: it adds options for the players and (possibly) provides an alternative for death.
Too bad we aren't all as genius as you. Why even bother with dice at all, I wonder? A good DM can easily adjucate the outcome of anything the players come up with. Bah. Those "Anyone who likes X, is just a video game/MMO/WoW geek" comments always get my blood boiling.
Okay, you guys have convinced me to try it out "as is". I'll convert NPCs with core classes/races to the beta as per Option 2: Complete Conversion on p. 299. As for the monsters and other NPCs, I think I'll compensate for the power increase by giving them a +2 on their highest stat and +1 hp per hit die (but see below). My players use the standard starting hit points option (max + Con modifier) and the elite array, just like the iconics. I think the reason why I'm having trouble on deciding how to balance the modules with the beta rules, is that I'm not sure if they are balanced with the iconic party in mind (which is pretty underpowered imo) or one that uses all the 3.5 splat books, prestige classes and whatnot. If the RotRL AP is balanced with the latter in mind, no adjustments seem necessary.
So... Eberron and 4E have action points, Arcana Evolved and Mutant & Masterminds have hero points, Star Wars has force points, True20 has conviction points, Warhammer has fate points. I see a trend... Will Pathfinder have any such system, maybe as an optional rule? Are you good folks at Paizo even considering it?
I second this motion. Five dice is just about the maximum I like to see flying around at once. :-)
|
