Search Posts
Wands are a better bet than rods at the early levels honestly. A fully charged first level/ caster wand is 750 GP. Buy one and use it if you don't happen to find any while adventuring. Also, I second the option of using scrolls and scribing as many as you can. They are a great resource for wizards.
My thought on the subject of coinage and expensive loot that adventurers find is to utilize a banking system so they can horde their wealth and not carry around all this money. I usually run the PF campaigns and there is usually a major city large enough for a temple of Abadar in them. Those temples have banks in them and the players can deposit their haul from their excursions and get letter of credit from the bank. They put those letters either in a safe in their base of operations or carry them in warded scroll tubes. Its basically a legit way of saying they have all this wealth and not have to carry it around on them all the time. When they go shopping for magic items and gear they just go to the temple to make a withdraw.
Question regarding the Seugathi in room K21. In the Bestiary 2 on page 243 the weapon it has equipped is a masterwork short sword that does 1d8 damage which implies that the weapon is actually a short sword designed for a large creature (of which the Seugathi is). So does that mean that the +1 Keen Longsword that it is using instead in this adventure does 2d6 damage and is it a large longsword? If so, how do you you other DMs handle this? I mean, no one in the party is a large character and would not use the large weapon due to penalties to hit so do you just say that it is a medium weapon instead for this fight or do you allow weapons to shrink or grow to accommodate whoever will end up wielding it?
Well, it is situations like these that tend to fall in the gray area of the game. Yes, folks can quote the RAW and they would be correct in that you only need to roll an attack roll to touch an enemy and not an ally if they were invisible. Then there are others who would get into the debate of "common sense" if you will, by examining the conditions at hand. Obviously, if you are blind you can not simply just reach out and touch someone in a large room that you are fighting in. Movement is halved unless you succeed at an acrobatics check and if you fail it you fall prone. Given that, if you find yourself in an outdoor area or very large room then you might have problems justifying getting to your ally and touching them. Also, there is combat going on. There may be hazards present that you are not aware of depending on when you were blinded. Did a caster get the jump on the cleric in the surprise round with blind? If so, then the cleric may not know exactly how many enemies and of what kind they are facing, where they are located, what environmental hazards might be present (ever fight on a ledge in a volcano?), etc. After all, is not part of the downside to being blinded being in a weakened state that prevents you from functioning normally? I tell my players that this is part of the challenge of Pathfinder and RPGs in general. Some DMs choose to be more heavy handed than others but I try to present challenges that my party actually has to try a little and think outside the box from time to time just to survive. In the end, just be fair and reasonable to the party. If you all agree on a ruling then things are going well. Continue to do that and you are doing it right. Debates happen but in the end it is fun that is most important.
what about enhancements?? on the shield?? would they both work?? say ?? say one shield had spell resistance and the other had deflect arrows?? would both propertys still work?? I would rule no, they would not both work. If you can not benefit from the combined AC of using two shields then you can not benefit from the magical enhancements of both shields in regards to defensive abilities. Now if they were magical enhancements geared for offense, such as a +1 to hit and damage, then maybe. At least that is my two coppers worth.
Yeah, I read that. Wasn't sure how far to take the haunts in the game and since they have only ventured into Harrowstone once up to this point it might not be a bad idea to start utilizing that option. That way they have a good in game way to discover how to lay to rest the haunts. The thing is that I don't want it to be difficult for them to discover how to destroy haunts because it would just be nerve wracking and frustrating and harrowstone can be tough as it is with some of the encounters in there. I think I will just utilize the standard knowledge checks vs the CR of the haunt. Seems to be the best way for the party to cope with permanently ridding the rooms of haunts so they don't have to continuously worry about them resetting. Thanks for the input! Much appreciated.
Are any of you DMs out there allowing your party to make religion checks to discover how to lay these things to rest Well, for the actual monsters that may manifest I can totally agree with you. The slamming haunt isn't a monster though, so the DC 10 + CR I don't think would work that way. It could, and honestly I may just resort to utilizing that ruling but I think that the effect haunts may be considered obscure knowledge and would warrant the DC 20-30 range. I guess it also depends on how common the haunt is as well. Regardless, using the knowledge religion in this aspect seems like a very good idea. Thank you for the input.
So I am a few game sessions into this campaign and my party just entered Harrowstone last night. The haunts are definitely challenging to them even though they stocked up on plenty of holy water and have a cleric of Sarenrae in the party. They have no problems disabling the haunts by hitting them with positive energy and they still have their haunt siphons (although they used one last night in the auditorium. I notice that there is not much they can do to find out how to actually destroy a haunt. Some haunts are pretty obscure in how to permanently destroy them. Are any of you DMs out there allowing your party to make religion checks to discover how to lay these things to rest or are you allowing them to stand without a check since killing off the five major baddies in the prison will rid Harrowstone of the haunts for good? The reason I am asking is that some of the haunts can get downright annoying since they have minimal resets. The one in the entry way started to piss them off quickly, so after experiencing it a few times I allowed a DC 25 knowledge religion check to determine if anyone knew about haunts and how to destroy this particular one. The party bard made the roll easily and I told him how to destroy it so he went ahead and did just that. It made things a little better on them especially since they plan on many trips into the prison. So, are any of you doing the same?
Alright, here you go. A tavern is run by a Lawful Evil barkeep. He swindles customers and charges different rates to different customers and is openly racist. He also runs an illegal gaming operation in the back of his tavern and lies on his annual taxes to avoid paying his fair share but he is smart enough about the tax laws that he never technically "breaks" the law, he just hides key information that would make him pay more than what he does. One day, a paladin walks into the tavern and just so happens to case the place by detecting evil. The tavern owner pings evil on his radar and the paladin draws his sword, smites and power attacks the barkeep simply because he radiated an evil aura and winds up killing him with one shot. Everyone clears the tavern in fear and shouts begin to go out to the city guard to come to the tavern because the owner has been.... MURDERED!! Yep, paladins do not have card blanche to kill evil at random. At least folks with half a brain and experience in D&D/ PF will play it as such. The paladin has a code of honor and conduct that he must adhere to, and nowhere in the code does it say to completely eradicate all evil from the face of the planet through acts of violence. Justice in a lot of peoples eyes seems to mean death, but that is totally far from the truth. This is where DM discretion comes into play. If any crime committed would be punishable by death, then there would be a huge population decrease on an annual basis and eventually the citizens would not tolerate it. Its called revolution and it has happened plenty of times. Plus, without any evidence of what crimes the tavern keeper has committed, the paladin is in the wrong for not being able to accurately list what the man was guilty for. Simply being evil is not enough, even in a game that is very hack and slash happy. In my personal opinion, if a paladin discovers that someone is evil, they should feel a sense of obligation to try and turn the said evil character from their ways before condemning them to the extreme extent of the law. Is this not a form of ridding the world of evil? Convincing something not to be evil anymore? Does it always work? NO. Are there times where death is the only answer? Heck yes! Demons and Devils especially come to mind on this aspect. A paladin should know full well that those creatures are evil incarnate and must be battled with all of his might.
Wow, this is totally wrong. Killing an innocent individual, even if ordered to do so my a senior ranking military official, is still a crime punishable by the UCMJ. Blindly following orders and claiming ignorance is not tolerated in the military. You are expected to have a sense of morality in all that you do. You never saw "A Few Good Men" did you? The marines in that film were ordered to carry out a "Code Red" by a very high ranking official and they were put on trial for the murder of a fellow marine. The murder was an accident and the "Code Red" was only meant to be a form of discipline carried out by the marines, but it went wrong and an innocent individual died. Even though they followed a direct order, they were found guilty for failing to do what was right. The order was wrong and they knew it. A time of war or not, if you follow unreasonable orders and are tried for them, you can and will be found guilty regardless if you were following a direct command.
My interpretation is that the paladin can use detect evil just as the spell says, but has another way of utilizing it as well. Regardless, the constant invisibility detector through detect evil is not really that effective. You do realize that even though you know the location of the aura that you are still subject to a 50% miss chance and you are denied your dex to AC from that invisible source right? It's not too much different than the Dragon Disciples ability to use blind sense. Granted, the DD is getting it at a much higher level, it is not overpowered or annoying in any way. Clever DMs can work around these abilities. Then again, Good DMs allow players to use these abilities provided they are smart enough to use them in creative ways.
Even better, I had a paladin in the "Council of Thieves" campaign that we just wrapped up last week. Talk about moral dilemmas, LOL. Lets see, a city that openly worships Asmodeus, tieflings that wander about the city freely, corrupted nobles that put on shows consisting of actual death on stage and is located in a kingdom that has a devil dealing queen. Talk about making a paladins head spin!
No, apparently the aura is too weak if they are 5HD or less. Yes, you would know that evil is present if they are in your cone of effect when you use detect evil, but you can not pin point them. If they are 5HD or more, then sure. Honestly, the chart really needs to be reworked so that creatures with evil intent can be picked up on by concentrating on them. Like I said, level 3 fighter who is murdering folks can't be pin pointed on your detect spell..... that just screams wrong to me.
Your straw man argument is weak. really, your examples are one extreme. I basically refuted your excuse of a paladin walking into a town and hacking down evil commoners. Code of Honor and Conduct.... right, it still dictates a moral obligation to follow the law and do what is right. Mass killing civilians who might have evil tendencies such as lying, cheating and stealing is far more evil of an act. Regardless, detect evil still works. Are you telling me that a level one spell has no effect or use until you reach at least level three? Seriously, if the DM is pitting a 5HD evil foe against a party of level one or two adventurers then that is very dangerous and highly unlikely that they will survive. You are saying that it does not work at all on 5HD or less? BS. Then why even make the spell a first level spell if it won't ever work? Furthermore, I think YOU need to reread that chart. A level one paladin or cleric (perhaps an evil cleric?) DOES radiate their aura and can be located with any detect spell (good, or evil) at level ONE. So that means that it DOES work at level one. It will function for less than 5HD. Argument refuted. Look at the spell and read what it says about concentrating for one round: "1st Presence or absence of evil." It says nothing about you requiring it to have a HD of five or more to know it is within your cone. It merely says that if it is above 5HD, you know it. You know that it is Faint in power. It does not say anywhere in the spell that Detect Evil does not function for creatures 5HD or lower. You want a class that takes matters into their own hands and metes out their own form of justice in the name of a god? See the Inquisitor. Paladins do not behave that way. At least well played ones do not. What they do in your games might be a different story.
Also, I have another question ><; If you do decide to focus on something, you can still tell if it's evil right? Even if it's not giving off an aura?Some say yes, some say no. I personally think the wording implies that you can tell they are evil even if they have no aura. Again, its tricky. You would know that evil is present. If there is only one creature within your sight and 60' cone of detect evil, then you can logically presume that the creature is evil. But there is no guarantee. There could be an invisible foe within that range that is giving off the evil vibe, and not the creature that you are actually looking at. I would say that you don't know for certain that it is evil. That's where the auras come into play. When you can read the aura, you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the creature is evil and how evil it is. Until then, you know that evil exists within him, but it is not strong enough for you to pinpoint him.
Not really. Thats called murder and no paladin who follows their code of honor would just slay anything evil. They just wont bother to talk to them or do any business with them and they will keep a close on on everything that goes on around them, looking for an excuse to bring them to justice. Bringing something to justice means arresting them too, not just executing them. Really folks, the idea that paladins kill everything evil is a very bad misconception and an ill played stereotype... Agreed 100%. It gets a bit risky about the worshipping an evil deity though. In "Council of Thieves" you lived around Asmodesus's influence and religion day in and day out, and tieflings wandered the streets. Granted, the tieflings were mostly the lowest rung on the social scale, these creatures were still evil at heart. Howerver, killing a worshipper of Asmodeus openly just for who they worshiped would get you a whole lot of trouble. Is it against a paladin's code? Maybe, maybe not. If the worshipper was not committing an evil act such as murder, then the paladin does not have just cause for killing them. I always though that the paladin would do their best to convert worshipers of evil deities. After all, death should be a last resort and not a hair trigger type of punishment handed out by a holy warrior.
Not really. Thats called murder and no paladin who follows their code of honor would just slay anything evil. They just wont bother to talk to them or do any business with them and they will keep a close on on everything that goes on around them, looking for an excuse to bring them to justice. Bringing something to justice means arresting them too, not just executing them. Really folks, the idea that paladins kill everything evil is a very bad misconception and an ill played stereotype. Detect evil would let the paladin know that evil is present in the city. Since he/ she has no way of knowing the exact location and aura strength of the evil, then they can't justifiably start "hacking down" commoners. That, in and of itself, is an evil act so no paladin would do it without cause. I feel the that OP should have at least known that something evil was present. Really, what harm could it have done? The paladin still would have to fight the encounter and would not have known what they were facing until it attacked. This is not game breaking or overpowered in any way. There are ways to magically get around detect evil, so I don't see why the player should not benefit from his class ability.
Not true the way I read the spell. He would know that evil is present, but he would not know how strong the aura was or the location of the aura. The first round of concentration says this in the RAW. "The presence or absence of evil" not the aura location and strength.
Well, if the DM and the player sit at the table and start a long debate about the intricasies of a character's belief system in regards to a spell, then you are both in need of some improvement at the table. First, if the DM allows the debate to carry on, then they are responsible for pretty much ruining the fun of the rest of the players at the table. The player also needs to be responsible enough to realize that it is a part of the encounter's challenge and that he/ she should not over react. Make a ruling, be fair and take the character's personality and beliefs that they have demonstrated up to that point into consideration. Then throw that crap out the window. It's called a "will save" and they obviously failed it. The game mechanics may allow them to ignore the effects of the spell. Plus, if you have them do something out of the realm of what they would perceive as acceptable behavior for that character, they usually get an additional bonus to the save. It is a game of challenges that should be overcome. Good players welcome the challenge and good DMs do not abuse the rules or mechanics within the game. Secondly, eliminating anything that causes a loss of control is using kid gloves to the extreme. Yes, you are correct in that the DM is far more powerful, but the players should not ever have a "get out of jail free" card in regards to a specific range of abilities that can be used against them. They would not memorize spells that can be beneficial in those situations. Since they don't need to do that, you are making their choices easier in the end and in the long run failing to challenge them appropriately. Third, these spells are easy to overcome. Pro from evil anyone? Break enchantment? Remove curse? Freedom of movement? Dispel/ Greater dispel magic? Really, there are ways to counter the controlling spells of Pathfinder. It is not that hard. Fourth, you are limiting the capabilities of the monsters by taking this course of action. A vampires dominate ability should be used whenever possible. These creatures are hard to combat, even to a seasoned player. Nerfing your bad guys and having players not worry about their full range of powers because they are aware of your gaming style imbalances encounters in favor of the players to a ridiculous level of gaming. Players have plenty of power, spells, magic items and skills at their disposal to handle it so let them. Trust is a very important factor at any game table. The DM should always strive to have their players trust that they will advocate a game in a fair and entertaining manner while not abusing the rules and mechanics and the DM should trust that the players will not cheat or disrupt the fun at the table in any way. Everyone is present to have fun and I don't think that eliminating "control" abilities is fun. But if your players think it is then more power to them. In the end that is what gaming is all about, is fun.
Nevermind :). Did some more in depth reading and ralized what each one was. Takes a bit of digging but they all make sense to me now.
On the maps for Walcourt in the second half of the Mother of Flies, there are little circles on each floor that are darkened and contain a letter on it. However, I can't find in the building or room descriptions what these are. The main floor has one with a "c" in the secret entrance hall. The second floor has a few "c"s in various rooms. What are these for? Are they vents for Ilnerik to move about the guildhouse? Or are these something else. I'm running this in a few hours so immediate responses would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Thank your for that insightful post! I agree 100% with this reply.
Sure. You can hide while being observed. Why don't you go into an empty room and have one of your friends try to hide from you. As they probably don't have HiPS, go ahead and close your eyes for a second to give them Concealment. Or just turn off the lights and close the blinds. You are simplifying this like a lab test. It reads like "Put subject 'A' in perfectly square room and have subject 'B' look for them." Now, lets utilize a more suitable setting for a change shall we? Like a dark cave or the the middle of a prairie on a dark overcast night? Ever go out to the middle of the plains on a new moon and see how dark it really gets? Its pretty damn dark and you are not trying to "hide" in a small room with the lights on. Then open your eyes and look around the room. i bet you're able to see your friend quite clearly as he has nothing to hide behind. Obviously. Its a bad example you are using. Also, please stop trying to use real life examples to explain how something is or is not possible is a make believe fantasy game where the IMPOSSIBLE is quite capable of being done. Normally, you cannot hide while being observed. This makes sense. If you move behind the chest of drawers while someone is watching you, they know you are behind the chest of drawers. However, with things like the bluff skill you can momentarily distract the viewer so that you can hide. Ok, I think that most everyone who has posted here will agree with this. We all know what the stealth skill says in regards to what is required to use it. Cover OR concealment. Not both. I do agree with this statement though so no need to pitch in more common sense to it. You still need to be near enough to something to hide in though. If you will agree that stepping back into the shadows is hiding in them then we are on the same page. If not, then I feel that this is where the disagreement starts with most folks. HiPS seems to mean you can use your surroundings or some other natural/supernatural means to momentarily distract your enemy. In fact, you are so used to doing so that you automatically succeed at it. Negative ghost rider. No where does it imply or state that HiPS is a free distraction against your target. It simply means that you are so damn good at blending with the shadows that you merely need to step into one that is 10' away and you are allowed to attempt to camouflage yourself from your targets senses. Now I know that it is a hard concept for some folks to understand, but that is what it means. Show me where it says otherwise and I'll concede the point but since no one can then we just have to agree to disagree on this special ability. FYI, the HiPS ability I use for my examples is that of the Shadow Dancer prestiege class and not the hunter favored terrain. I can see how folks are getting mixed signals from the points being made here over those two class abilities. Favored terrain means that you know enough about your environment that you can take advantage of that momentary distraction to find a place to hide. The other HiPS abilities usually allow you to gain the concealment of shadows during the time your opponent is distracted. It's... Again, distraction does not come into play. You are not getting a free natural 20 on your bluff check here. You are just skilled enough that you can "attempt" to do it even by being watched. Keep in mind I say attempt because even though the HiPS ability allows you to stealth while being observed, it does not guarantee that you are successful. It merely allows you to do it and ignore a core rule for a class specific situational rule. You can still fail hard at your stealth using HiPS. Races with darkvision can still see you if you are still within the range of their sight no matter how high your roll is (again, this is going off the fact that a shadow dancer is merely stepping back into the shadows using HiPS and is not hiding behind anything.) Low light vision characters may still see you as well. If a caster drops a Daylight spell in the area you are almost certainly screwed out of using that ability. So I have to ask this, why is it so much of a bad thing that HiPS does not require cover? Its not. Just use your head as a player and GM and you can get around it if its a real problem. Isn't that one of the aspects of this game is to overcome challenges? I believe so.
You have this idea that Stealth is based on environment, but the skill clearly states that it is based on observation. Cover and concealment allow you to beat observation. If you haven't been observed, you don't need cover/concealment. Exactly my point, thank you very much.
Maybe this will help, note the different ability types. Emphasis mine. You have nothing to back this up though. HiPS does NOT need anything to hide behind. Shadows other than the shadow dancers own are sufficient for them to utilize their HiPS ability and you don't hide behind them, you hide within them. You need to show otherwise in the RAW in order to have a valid point. You have not done that yet. Seeing something or someone who has rolled a stealth check requires an opposed perception check if that creature has already become stealthed. Leaping from the shadows does not take away the element of surprise for a sneak attack if a successful perception check was not made prior to said creature leaping from the shadows. He will not be stealthed after his attack is over but for purposes of getting the drop on someone he most definitely has stealth. |
