The number tells you what party level the encounter is 'Severe' for -- here, for a party at level 1. The same encounter would not be a 'Severe' encounter for a level 2 party.
Quote:
They're listed as "Creature -1" and "Creature 2" respectively, but I can't find a CR table anywhere here or in the Bestiary.
What you want is the XP table in the Core Rulebook on page 508, and the encounter budget table on page 489.
Page 508 tells you what XP a given creature is worth: it's always relative to party level -- a creature at party level ("Creature 1", for a level 1 party) is 40, and a creature two levels below party level (here, "creature -1" for a level 1 party) is 20xp. That counters towards your encounter XP budget -- here, 120xp budgeted for a Severe encounter.
Page 489 tells you that adjusting an encounter to keep it Severe requires adding 30xp per player (or removing 30xp per player if you're dropping below 4). You could add a mangy wolf and add a template to bring it up to Creature 0 (1 below party level, so 30 xp) or just add a regular mangy wolf and call that close enough.
Quote:
Anyway, so the encounter is 120 XP for a four person party, I believe. So that's 30 each.
Whether you add a wolf or not, you award the encounter XP to everyone in the party -- that's 120xp per player, since that was your original 4-person encounter budget.
You can also run Plaguestone with milestone leveling if you want -- the points in the adventure where encounter budgets switch to 'Moderate 2' are where players, approximately, ought to be 2nd level.
would the 3rd strike be at -5 or -10? (Because it is the third attack in the round)
The third attack would be at -10.
The full wording on the Double Shot Feat, which I presume is what Greytusk is using under-the-hood, makes this more clear: "Both attacks count toward your multiple attack penalty, but the penalty doesn’t increase until after you’ve made both of them."
Normally, when you attack three times, "The third time you attack...you take a –10 penalty to your attack roll."
So: both Strikes count, and the third Strike would be at -10.
Question about the intent for area A17: Does Unity lose control over the other robots in A17 when the party reaches 8 victory points or when the party reaches 10 victory points?
The text for A17:
Quote:
This encounter as presented assumes the PCs have earned at least 10 Victory Points over Unity (see page 50) and have thus disrupted Unity’s programming enough that it has to shut down the additional robots here in order to focus its control on the aggregate overlord.
But on page 50:
Quote:
8 Victory Points: Unity...loses direct control over the robots in area A17—these robots become nonfunctional for the remainder of the adventure.
I'm presuming that Page 50 is correct, since A17 tells you to reference Page 50, but curious how other people ran this.
Although this is ultimately up to your GM, the way I've been running Iron Gods is that the Semi-Automatic description is a bonus, not a restraint: you can make iterative attacks as normal, but if you don't get iterative attacks you can still take multiple attacks using a semi-automatic weapon as a full round action, and that stacks with Rapidshot if you have it.
The text for Automatic weapons also, iirc, specifically calls out that they *may* be used as Semi-Automatic weapons at the user's discretion, as a toggleable choice.
As evidence for that, I'd point to all of the NPCs who use semi-automatic weapons and get iterative attacks in line with the above -- Book 6 has one on page 47, for example. In Book 4, page 58, a character with a technological rifle and +10 Base Attack is listed as having, in their attack line, "zero rifle +15/+10 touch (2d6+4 cold)" -- that's clearly an iterative attack offset by five and not the flat -2/-2 that the text of Semi-Automatic calls for when making multiple attacks. My read has been that this character, with that statline, could elect as a full-round action to:
- Attack twice at +15/+10 (iterative)
- Attack three times at +13/+13/+8 (iterative + semi-automatic)
- Attack four times at +9/+9/+9/+4 (iterative + semi-automatic + rapidshot)
- Attack in a line (since the rifle can fire on automatic mode)
Those other options aren't specifically called out on the NPC pages, but that's in line with how feats that you can elect to use or not use are not always included in NPC statlines.
All of that's moot if you GM disagrees, obviously, but I would argue that the clear intent is for semi-automatic lasers, etc, to be used as often as your BAB allows.
Also wondering what the design reason for this restriction is -- just ran into what might be the same one-shot, in which a character prepped Ghostly Weapon, not noticing the non-magical item requirement, and ended up never using it specifically because everyone using weapons were already using magical weapons. I'm not sure what, if anything, needs to change -- make it a second-level spell so it's less of an opportunity cost to take? let it affect magical weapons? give it some added flavor text to explain why it only affects mundane weapons? -- but it feels like a spell that's not going to be worth preparing in a third-level slot versus your other options.
Book 2 - she could be in Scrapwall, if you wanted to resolve it right away; perhaps in hiding with Dinvaya after an altercation with the gangs, looking for an opportunity to get out of town.
Book 3 - she could be undercover in Iadenveigh, trying to conduct a clandestine survey of the town -- which might complicate or intersect with the rumours of a Technic League spy; she might even, if things go badly, be caught and put on trial, spurring the PCs to find the real culprit to prove her innocence. Or, she could be travelling more openly and trying to negotiate a way for her to search under and around the town (giving the PCs a chance to aid her in her negotiations).
Book 4 - she could be an unwitting accomplice to Hyrsek Caio, believing that he has been hired to search the valley, and hiring her in turn to aid his search (you might also consider changing his role, in that case, and giving him some other assistants). Discovering his true mission might be a interesting mutual surprise. Or, she could been searching the valley by herself (or with a different team), and been captured -- and either put in a brain-case by the Mi-Go (in the same storage nook as Therace), or perhaps awaiting surgery in the Dominion Hive (the timing on that may be tricky).
Book 5 - she could have fallen in with the Mockery, and needs to be extracted from a dangerous situation by the PCs (and only then do they discover that the person they're saving is her); or, she might be selling things on the black market -- complicating their existing black-market mission (if they're working with the Mockery). Or, more grimly, she could be -- either for its own sake, or if the above missions go badly -- imprisoned by the Technic League in their compound, adding a prison-break aspect to the existing goal of breaking in.
I've been using the Hardness rules right out of the book, since I've not been given anything else to work with, even after searching through the PRD and PFSRD [...] Its Electricity weakness doesn't even seem to make much of a difference, because hardness only takes half damage from elemental damage, as far as I understand?
If you're halving electricity damage, then you're misreading the object rules as the hardness rules.
Hardness: Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object's hit points
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness.
1. Objects have hardness. Hardness means you take some number of points of damage less than you otherwise would.
2. Objects are also typically resistant to energy attacks; energy attacks are halved against objects.
Those are two separate rules, and they're both about objects, not directly about hardness. Robots are not objects, so you only need to apply the hardness rules, not the object rules. 'Hardness' means you take some number of damage less than you otherwise would, from any type of damage (unlike DR or energy resistance, which are conditional on types of damage).
How does hardness work for creatures? Does energy damage such as cold deal half damage to creatures with hardness (Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook 173-174) even before applying the flat numerical reduction?
When a creature with hardness sustains damage, subtract its hardness from the damage dealt. The rules for halving damage, doubling damage, dealing damage with ineffective tools, immunities, and the like only apply to damaging inanimate objects.
This is definitely a confusing point, because the object rules and the hardness rules were both originally written without creatures-with-hardness in mind.
As written in the Technology Guide, grenades are treated as 'thrown splash weapons', not 'thrown weapons.'
Under the PRD entry for thrown splash weapons,
PRD wrote:
If you miss the target (whether aiming at a creature or a grid intersection), roll 1d8. This determines the misdirection of the throw, with 1 falling short (off-target in a straight line toward the thrower), and 2 through 8 rotating around the target creature or grid intersection in a clockwise direction. Then, count a number of squares in the indicated direction equal to the range increment of the throw. After you determine where the weapon landed, it deals splash damage to all creatures in that square and in all adjacent squares.
Additionally, splash weapons are ranged touch attacks against a target, or a ranged attack against a grid intersection with AC 5, so missing isn't terrible likely. But! If you do miss, you roll a d8 to determine direction, but the distance isn't random -- it's based on how far you were aiming. Grenades don't have a listed range increment (right?), so I've gone with 10ft, since that's the same as most alchemical splash weapons.
If I'm reading your scenario correctly, the grenade was thrown about twenty feet away -- already dangerous, since the grenade's splash radius is itself twenty feet! That's two range increments, so having missed it would scatter two squares backwards, ten feet towards the thrower -- still enough to be dangerous in this case.
But! Grenades "[detonate] at the beginning of the wielder's next turn," not immediately -- so if it does scatter backwards, you've hopefully got time to move before it goes off. Never take your move action and then throw a grenade, basically.
At least, that's my understanding -- I'd love some additional confirmation, since grenades are a bit weird, especially in how they intersect with grenade launchers.
Names: Nadia, Corrin
Races: Human, Human
Classes/levels: Cleric of Brigh 6, Paladin of Iomedae 6
Adventure: Lords of Rust
Location: Hellion's Abode
Catalyst: Hellion
The Gory Details:
Turns out, exploding on death is a good way to make sure other people die. Explosively.
Both characters were already in negative HP, having charged through all of the Glyphs of Warding and entered combat without time to heal. After a short but well-fought fight, one of the other party members landed a crit while grappled by Hellion's pincers, dramatically ending the battle...and his friends lives.
Question: is Redtooth's plan to destroy the receiver array (and the quest she gives the PCs) detailed at any point? I've found it mentioned in three different places, but every one seems to be referencing a quest that I haven't found.
Details:
Spoiler:
Page 26 ("Redtooth's Warren") notes that the detonator "is of particular importance" because it's part of her plan to target the Arena and the Receiver at the same time; and that Redtooth "can be the source of several quests, as detailed on page 61."
Page 30 ("Receiver Array") reads in part "If there PCs are sent here by Redtooth to destroy the receiver array..." and explains how to do that.
But page 61 notes two things separately:
In the descriptive text, Redtooth's initial plan was to use rust monsters to undermine the Arena; the Receiver is not mentioned, and it notes that she hasn't settled on a final plan now that this isn't possible (which is hard to reconcile with page 26, where she has a plan that involves no rust monsters *and* involves two locations instead of one).
In the "campaign role" heading, Redtooth is noted as potentially giving several quests, including, "She could just as easily suggest [that the PCs] explore the territory of the Thralls of Hellion, since she's heard rumors that the Lords of Rust recently disbanded the gang in a fit of rage." Which would get the PCs to the receiver, but doesn't discuss - and doesn't eleswhere, except pp. 26 & 30? -- *destroying* the receiver.
There's more than enough detail that I can easily fill in the missing information, so this isn't really a problem, per se, I'd just love to make sure I'm not overlooking some piece of text tying those areas together (and therefore also that I'm not missing anything else about them).
Name: Hardad
Race: Human
Classes/levels: Pistolero Gunslinger 4
Adventure: Lords of Rust
Location: Hawk Palace
Catalyst: Birdfoot
The Gory Details:
Spoiler:
The party made quick work of Birdfoot's orcs and guessed that Birdfoot must be in the large central room. Unfortunately, the party paladin entered the bottom door, and thus couldn't close into melee. The party gunslinger went in the top door, missed Birdfoot, who promptly shot him. Critical hit, confirmed, near-maximum damage rolled, and then the bonus damage from the humanbane arrow dropped him from full health to dead in the first round of combat.
For added insult, two of Birdfoots pets crit the (already wounded) paladin and dropped him to around -5hp. A successful Color Spray evened the odds fairly quickly, but it was very nearly a TPK.
I've had one PC death so far, only a little ways into Lords of Rust. Party of four (human pistolero gunslinger, human paladin of Iomedae, human cleric of Brigh, android magus), 15-point buy. Birdfoot confirmed a critical against the gunslinger and rolled for nearly-max damage across the board: from full-health to dead in only one round. And then two of his pet birds confirmed critical hits on the (already wounded) paladin in the same round, dropping him to -5 but not quite finishing him off.
One Color Spray later, the rest of the fight was a pushover. Had Birdfoot failed his save, though, that could easily have been a TPK.
Quite a few PCs dropped to negative hp and stabilized (at the blindheim, the first ghelarn, Hetuath, the warehouse (which, to be fair, happened slightly differently than as written), and at the first Smilers encounter. It feels more lethal than Kingmaker or Legacy of Fire -- the other two APs this group of players has gone through (although with LoF only part-way)-- but I'm not sure if those comparisons are fair. Kingmaker, in particular, tended towards once-a-day combat with a lot of pre-planning possible, so that tended to make combat easier than it otherwise would have been.
