existence123's page

You take the martial weapon proficiency feat of longsword. You could also choose to be an elf and just get the proficiency of longsword for free.

Ah - I'd missed that when flipping through the book. Thanks. I thought there was such a feat, but I wasn't seeing it and it was really bugging me. Thanks!

Hello,

I'm coming back to Pathfinder after a hiatus, so I've been reading the core book to reacquaint myself.

One thing I find myself wondering - say you're a wizard, and you'd like to become proficient with a long sword to avoid the -4 penalty. Is there a skill or feat that lets you do this? Or would you have to take a level in a different class to gain that proficiency?

Thanks!

Ok it's moot now as we played out the first half of this module earlier this evening. If anyone ever comes to this thread out of curiosity about this module, I can say that, at least for my group, it all went more or less as planned and laid out. The PCs took the poison and were thus incarcerated by the Razmiri, but minded their p's and q's, got good citizenship awards and their weapons back, and are now planning to infiltrate the second floor of the temple. I'm finding Masks to be a very cool module which really allows some nice roleplaying and creative thinking for a GM. I'm particularly enjoying the Krant character, who is a real cruel SOB (I have him refer to himself in the third person, such as "listen up you disgusting worms, today it's bloodsport in the courtyard, time to fight for Krant's amusement, geh-hah-heh-heh!"

Hi,

Going into my fourth session tomorrow. I'm a new Pathfinder GM. We'll be starting Masks of the Living God.

SPOILERS TO FOLLOW, STOP READING ETC

Ok, the beginning of the adventure. The PCs attend a recruitment meeting at the Ranger's Lament. Egarthis gives his spiel about how awesome Razmir is, blah blah, then the drugged food and drink is served. The general idea is that the PCs are knocked unconscious, stripped of their gear, and thrown into a prison cell.

I'm thinking of skipping this bit, as I'm afraid it will cause the players to simply try to escape/start fighting at the earliest opportunity. I'm thinking the adventure might keep closer to the track - a slow, evidence-building investigation culminating in a big showdown - if I simply have the players accept admission and enter the temple of their own free will. I suppose I would have to throw in something about the priests demanding they surrender their weapons for "safekeeping".

Anyways, I'm mostly looking for some advice from GMs and players who've run this module before. How did it work out? I've prepared all sorts of awesome stuff and I'd hate if it was all wasted because the PCs decided to just start bashing heads - masked heads - at first chance.

Thanks!

I agree that Paizo definitely created an effective gateway drug. Since buying the BB a few months ago I've purchased several of the hardbound books, three or four modules, another flip mat, and the Bestiary box.

Stop me before I buy again :/

Very good, thanks a lot for the answers. I only have Bestiary 1, but I suppose it's all online so that shouldn't be a problem. It looks like I'll need to do a little extra work to use the module, but it hopefully won't be too bad. My other option for a follow up to City of Golden Death is From Shore to Sea, but I'm wondering how the heck I can get PCs in Nirmathas to the Hellmouth Gulf in a somewhat plausible, non-railroady way (it's something like 1,000 miles away.)

Thanks guys.

Hi,

I'm considering getting "Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale" to run my players through - it seems like a logical next step after the Price of Immortalty trilogy what with it picking up at the right level and taking place in the same area of Golarion.

I'm wondering though: Pathfinder modules don't give monster stat blocks, but instead refer you to the appropriate Bestiary page. What then of the older modules like Bloodsworn Vale? Since they were released prior to the Bestiary, do they actually give you full stat blocks for monsters? Or do they refer to the Other Guy's monster books?

Thanks!

Thanks guys!

Player is asking me whether the horse summoned by a Mount spell needs food and water, and whether it feels fear in battle.

I said yes. I figure if the horse had special properties, it would say so. He isn't buying it, as it's a "magic horse".

I reckon that since it's not spelled out in the rules it's a judgement call, but I figured I'd ask how you guys play it.

Hello,

During our session tonight a player suggested attacking skeletons with a sheathed sword in order to negate the damage resistance. I allowed it, but now I think I shouldn't have. Why would a sword do the same damage sheathed and unsheathed? It also seems to make it far too easy to get around not having a bludgeoning weapon. Are there any rules that deal with this? In retrospect I feel I should have allowed it, but made the weapon deal only half damage, or maybe even 1d2. Any thoughts and suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks to everyone who offered advice. I quite like the idea of not taking the penalty in exchange for risking friendly fire.

It's all moot now as the player has decided to leave the game. We had a friendly and frank discussion over e-mail and he decided to find a game more suited to his preferences. It's probably for the best.

This is the first time I've GM'd with players I wasn't already friends with. Two sessions in, I've already learned a valuable lesson. Thanks again to everyone who chimed in. This really is a great site. Cheers!

I should add that part of my objection is that I'm old-fashioned and *like* dice. For me, part of the tabletop experience is chucking around oddly-shaped pieces of plastic. Players sitting around the table and tapping their phones just doesn't seem as cool to me. I will also add that this objection seems utterly aesthetic and maybe even dumb.

I have an update. I hope this isn't too OT, as it isn't related to the -4 penalty issue.

I received an email from this player apologizing for hassling me. That was good and I appreciated it.

However, he goes on to say he plans on using a smartphone app to roll his dice from now on. A little backstory: last night the players did have lots of poor rolls. He says the random number generators will do a better job than dice and prevent another "nightmare" like last night.

Should I let him use a phone app to generate random numbers? I'm afraid if he does it, everyone will want to do it, and while I'm only speculating, might a die roll being a little number on a phone only you can see make fudging easier? Do I have any right to even raise this issue when I myself roll dice behind a
GM screen?

How do the forum cognoscenti feel about this?

Ok, if the realism argument is bunk - and I'm prepared to entertain that notion - what are the effects from a purely mechanical standpoint? Would eliminating the -4 make ranged touch attack spells and archery too easy/powerful, or would it *fix* a rule that unbalances the game to the detriment of these abilities/attacks? I'm coming from more of a wargame/boardgame background, where mechanics are the main thing; ttrpg's are clearly a different animal as "balance" seems a slightly more nebulous concept in a game geared towards narrative and theme rather than balanced mechanics intended to create a good competitive framework.

Also, I will tell him about Precise Shot. Didn't occur to me at the time.

This is the first time I've GM'd pathfinder and the first time I've GM'd *anything* in years. So I'm rusty and scrambling to run combats, make sure rules are followed, provide a compelling narrative, etc etc. Then I've got this dude giving me guff about a pretty basic cornerstone-type rule and it's totally monkeywrenching the works.

Good point about the lack of facing, I'll try that tack next time.

Re: cover. I was met with even more vigorous derisive snorting (perhaps derisive snorting is a small overstatement, but only a small
One), when it became necessary to apply the -4 for firing into melee *along with* the +4 creature AC for cover - usually because line of sight went through the friendly PC who was engaged in melee with the target. I was told that it was silly that shooting an arrow *past* two fighting creatures at a non-engaged enemy *beyond them* was easier than firing at the engaged enemy.

So anyways, I think I did a good job explaining the rules and remaining polite. None of the other players gave me any trouble at all and I suppose it's just this fellow's personality. Thanks for the help and it does feel sort of good to vent. This is like a GM support group therapy meeting or something.

Hello,

Just finished running my second session of a new campaign. Had one player who kept complaining about the rule that states you incur a -4 penalty to hit when firing at an enemy adjacent to an ally. He argued that if a bad guy has his back to you - ie, your ally is on the other side of your target - you shouldn't get the penalty. Later on, he argued that since the wizard was casting disrupt undead at an undead adjacent to the fighter, he shouldn't get the -4 because disrupt undead can't hurt the fighter, so why would the wizard need to be extra careful with his aim?

I tried to explain this by saying that the penalty is meant to not only represent the extra care taken to miss an ally, but also the fact that a creature engaged in melee is darting about and probably a hard target - naturally he didn't buy it.

So I guess I'm frustrated and just looking for some advice on how to handle this sort of thing. How do you generally deal with players who complain about rules they don't like (there were others I'm not mentioning - other rules he complained about, that is.)

Incidentally, I did point out to him that the -4 applied to the PCs enemies as well, so it works both ways. It just so happens that in tonight's session all of their foes only had melee attacks, so the -4 didn't factor in for them, only against them. Even after this point, which I felt was pretty ironclad, he just scoffed.

Orfamay Quest, great name. Love that Chandler...

existence123 wrote:

The rules say to treat this as a ranged attack with a thrown weapon. This cleric also has the Point Blank Shot feat, which grants +1 to hit and damage for ranged attacks within 30 feet. Would this NPC get to use the +1 from Point Blank Shot with his hand of the acolyte?

Of course. Ranged attacks benefit from point blank shot. Rays, ranged touch attack spells and this ablity as well as bows, crossbows and mundane thrown weapons.

If you can throw a spear and get the bonus (which is a ranged attack with a thrown weapon) I see no reason you wouldn't with the Domain power.

"of course?"

I reckon "yes" would have sufficed. But thanks all the same, I do appreciate the help.

I designed an evil cleric NPC today for possible future use in my campaign. I made him a follower of Asmodeus, and chose Fire and Magic as his domains.

The Fire domain gives him the hand of the acolyte ability, which allows him to throw a melee weapon up to 30 feet. The rules say to treat this as a ranged attack with a thrown weapon. This cleric also has the Point Blank Shot feat, which grants +1 to hit and damage for ranged attacks within 30 feet. Would this NPC get to use the +1 from Point Blank Shot with his hand of the acolyte?

Hi,

Currently running the players through the Price of Immortality trilogy. I figure they'll be somewhere around level 6 afterward, which is about right for From Shore to Sea. However, the Price of Immortality takes place pretty much exclusively in the Nirmathas/Lake Encarthan area, while From Shore to Sea is set up to take place in Cheliax.

Any suggestions on how to get the PCs to Cheliax? It's a pretty long way. I know I can always move the setting, but since it's pretty clearly a seaside adventure, I don't think it would make sense to try to make it take place around Nirmathas. I also realize that I don't have to stick to by-the-book Golarion and could easily just say "after four days travel, you arrive in Cheliax," or even, "in MY Golarion, Nirmathas is pretty close to the ocean!", but that just seems wrong. It offends my sense of canonical rectitude.

So I thought I'd ask for some advice. Thanks in advance!

I have a question about overrun too:

I am adjacent to a creature I want to overrun. I make a combat maneuver roll (but first the creature gets an AoO.) I succeed in my combat maneuver. I place my character

1) in the same space as the creature.

2) in the space just beyond the creature.

Can you move half your speed, make an attack, then move the remainder?

Thanks guys, this thread has been very useful. I now see both sides of the issue. I'm going to talk it over with the players and get their feelings. I suspect I'll end up using a simplified system of some kind.

That was my main concern: that not using encumbrance would upset game balance.

I'm considering compromising with the player and just keeping load limits - so no character can carry more than his heavy limit allows. That does create a situation where your armor gives you Dex and check penalties, but an armorless character with strength 9 and 80 pounds of gear would incur no penalty at all. I'm not sure if that alternative is necessarily more appealing.

Hi,

I'm one session into a new Pathfinder campaign, and have decided that I had better use the encumbrance rules in order to avoid absurd situations. I sent out a group e-mail to the players to let them know. I'm getting some pushback from one player, who essentially thinks it's a bad idea because of the bookkeeping.

I'm looking for some input about this. Do you guys use encumbrance rules as written? Would it be ok to maybe compromise use load limits but not the extra check and DEX penalties?

Thanks Gauss, I've bookmarked that page as it seems to contain lots of great stuff.

I have one more question if I might test your patience. :)

In Sean's example, he posits a PC w/longsword and light mace. I totally get what he's saying about the extra attack: when you're just getting the attacks you're normally entitled to, no two-weapon fighting penalties. Check. But in his last example, he talked about our +6/+1 BAB fighter making three attacks at +6, +1, and +6. But shouldn't the penalties apply here, since he's getting an extra attack? Or was he just listing the base modifiers before any two-weapon fighting penalties were applied?

Gauss, thank you. I didn't realize that was the case. So even though our fighter 6 has the shield in his off-hand, he doesn't suffer any penalty.

So how does actual two-weapon fighting figure into that example? Could fighter 6 make
*three* attacks, since he gets two anyways and then a third for two-weapon fighting? Or is that wrong thinking?

DonDuckie,

Wow, ok thanks for setting me straight on number 1. That seems to make a pretty big in-game difference; which side it benefits might be unpredictable but a battle is definitely going to play out differently depending on which method you use. I have to say that the aesthete in me likes the idea of each monster having a different initiative number, but this does introduce an additional layer of bookkeeping.

On a broader note, I'm really enjoying the tactical minis side of Pathfinder. This game is wild and wooly with its many rules, powers, modifiers and special cases, but I have to say I enjoyed just setting up a few battles and playing through them.

Thanks again for the help.

Thanks guys, I appreciate the help.I have a few more questions if you don't mind:

1) When I as GM roll initiative for monsters, do I roll separately for each monster, or once per monster type?

2) When a character gets his extra attack, say the fighter at level 6, this extra attack is with his primary weapon, right? And he must expend a full round action to get both attacks?

3) Burning hands affects a 15 foot cone-shaped area. When rolling damage, does the caster roll once and apply this amount to each creature in the cone? How about a power like the cleric's Channel Energy? Roll once or separately?

Hi,

Questions, questions, always questions...

1) Was running some practice battles tonight. My friend was using his elven wizard, who likes to use a shortbow. He was wondering whether he could use a shortbow and cast spells. I said probably not, since the shortbow requires two hands. Would he be able to hold the shortbow in one hand to free up a hand for dramatic wizardly gesturing? If so, would "relaxing" from the two-handed ready position cost a move action, and would resuming from the relaxed position back to a two-handed ready position cost a move action as well?

2) To cast Sleep, you select an origin point for the 10 foot radius burst. Does the caster have to be able to see this point?

3) Say Valeros the Unfortunate has an enemy on either side. These two enemies are flanking him and get +2 to hit. If a third enemy moves adjacent to him, does he also get the flanking bonus, even though he isn't exactly opposite an ally?

Ack! Disregard the last question. I found the full descriptions of those conditions in the appendix.

Still would like to know if the two -2's stack though.

I've started like four thousand threads in the last couple weeks so let me just ask this here instead of making another one.

Does a creature affected by Color Spray - a stunned and blinded one - suffer any penalties to attack? I see table 8-6 which states that such a creature suffers
AC penalties, but table 8-5, which covers attack roll modifiers, makes no mention of the blinded and stunned conditions.

And w/r/t to 8-6, do the -2 penalties to AC for blinded and stunned stack?

@HangarFlying: Here you go

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?feature=fvwrel&v =c2zWHD1Xw68

Ok. That did seem a little too easy to me. I was watching a "how to" video on YouTube and that's the way he did it (giving full HP.)

Is this correct:

I am a first level wizard. I level up. I decide to take my second level in fIghter. I get 10 (+/-CON) hit points (instead of rolling d10.) I get a combat feat like a first level fighter. I get all the weapon and armor proficiencies of a first level fighter.

Thanks!

Sounds like the answer is "not much", which means I'll probably be trying that module. Thanks a lot, your reply and the link you provided were both very helpful!

Hello,

Pretty basic question here: just how much conversion work, if any, is necessary to run a Paizo 3.5 module with the Pathfinder rules? Specifically, I'm thinking of trying out Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale.

Thanks guys!

Hello,

I'm new to Pathfinder, having only just run my first session a few nights ago. I'm using Golarion as my campaign setting, as it seems like an interesting and well fleshed out world.

Thing is, I don't own the Inner Sea World Guide yet, and I've never read any Pathfinder fiction. My knowledge of Golarion is comprised of what I've learned from the two modules I've read and tidbits picked up on the Pathfinder wiki.

One of the players is an Elf wizard. He found a type of armor called haramaki online (I guess it's in the Ultimate Combat book, which I don't own). He wants to know if he can either buy it or become skilled in crafting armor so he can make his own.

I assume this is eastern armor from Tian Xia? I figure this sort of thing must be hard to come by in Avistan, and the idea of crafting it seems a bit weird, as his character is an elf from Nirmathas.

What say you, grizzled veterans of Pathfinder?

I can answer a few of these.

2) The text will often tell you what it takes to notice something. With new
players, you might have to nudge them at first ("if you ever want to search a room, let me know...") Eventually they should learn that to be successful they'll need to interact with the game world, using game effects like perception checks, sense motive checks, etc.

2a) I believe for the most part, players ought to announce that they wish to closely examine this or that, but like I said above, with folks new to tabletop games, you would do well to suggest things at first.

3) For stuff like channel energy, the target gets a saving throw - it's in the description of the power. Most normal attacks don't allow them though; basically the game text or the spell/ability description should tell you when a saving throw is called for.

Full disclosure: I'm new to pathfinder too, but I have a fair amount of GMing XP points under my belt ;)

Played my first session last night. Used Op Attacks, and everything was fine. Guess my worry was much ado about nothing. Thanks for all the help.

Wow, sneak attack is much better than I initially believed; rogues always want to be flanking: +2 to hit *and* +d6 damage! Flanking is obviously a
good idea in general but is apparently extra good for the rogue.

Thanks for the help.

Thanks to all the replies.

I'll take my question about Masks of the Living God to the modules section, as it's off-topic here.

Thanks again!

Hello again,

Ran my first game of Pathfinder last night, using the Crypt of the Everflame module. It was lots of fun, if a bit overwhelming at times. I do have a few questions based on situations that occurred during the session.

1) The party's wizard was using Disrupt undead to
attack skeletons from range. The spell says to make a ranged touch attack. Are these sorts of spell attacks subject to the cover rule (+4 target AC if line of sight goes through obstacle or creature)?

2) Are they subject to the -4 attack roll penalty when firing at targets engaged in melee with an ally?

3) Does reloading a shortbow require an action?

4) Any tips on keeping track of which pawn/mini corresponds to which creature for purposes if tracking hp?

That's all I can think of right now. All in all things went smoothly. The PCs were very cautious and searched for traps at every opportunity (this served them well on one particular occasion which I won't go into in case anyone reading this plans on playing this module.) I prepared pretty thoroughly, reading the whole module
twice and even adding some of my own text. It appears to be a straightforward adventure to run.

I ordered the sequel, Masks of the Living God, and have read through half of it. I can tell this will be more challenging to GM, as it's far more open-ended. Anyone who has
run this module and would like to offer their thoughts and advice would be appreciated.

Thanks to everyone!

1) Page 68, Core Rules: "The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC or when the rogue flanks her target."

Does this mean that every time a rogue has flanking - ie., has an ally on the opposite side of the opponent - he gets the extra 1d6 damage?

2) Say a rogue has successfully used Stealth to hide behind a corner during a combat. On his turn, he moves out of concealment and attacks an opponent. Does the rogue need to make another stealh check to approach unnoticed? And if he does approach unnoticed, does he get the extra 1d6 sneak attack damage?

Just to clarify...does "one of those" mean a single claw or wing attack, or two claw/wing attacks?

Dream Daemon, if I only had that many to go around...

Edit- And a brain wave of greater amplitude might have induced me to check paizo.com...but hey, that'd be making it too easy...

I bought the beginner box a few weeks ago and did find that it was a little difficult to track down - a sign of dwindling supply. Then I had a brainwave, walked into my local Barnes and Noble and found one there.

Someone up top asked me to provide more information:

1) Not running the BB scenario. I'll be running Crypt of the Everflame.
2) The players are new to Pathfinder, but all of them have some experience with ttrpg's.
3) They *are* using BB characters.
4) 4 players in the group.

Thanks for all the helpful replies; they've given me a lot to think about. Right now I'm leaning toward using AoO rules, just to keep the combats more interesting. I've played a lot of wargames and have some tactical mini-type experience, so the idea of opportunity attacks and zones of control and stuff don't bother me; I was more concerned about keeping the players engaged.

That was a good point about forming lines and using AoOs to protect weaker backline characters; I hadn't thought of that. I think I had a mental block causing me to only consider AoOs with regard to *monsters* using them, and failed to realize that the PCs will be using them as well.

Thanks again for the help!

EDIT: Reynard, just read your post. Good arguments. Now I'm leaning toward *not* using them! Agghhh, the indecision! :)