Search Posts
I did notice that this is the only time that they have put this high of a CR in the the 3rd book of the AP. I totally agree that it's a difficult fight, and I think they should have put in more foreshadowing for such a difficult monster. But it's doable, and remember that it is unable to attack a party with fly and ranged attacks. But with a melee only party with low CMDs... Good luck.
We're at the end of the fifth adventure, and I have the following thoughts on Serpent's Skull: Pros:
Cons:
Buy this AP if:
If you are unsure:
About part 3:
Looking at those monsters it's important to note that they are the biggest badasses in the book, so if you were still around 7-8 I get how that would be an issue. It's also important to note that you can retreat and rest a lot in this adventure, so each individual encounter should be easier than in a dungeon. Also, one spell takes care of the grab-aspect first monster: A spell any cleric worth his salt should memorize:
Freedom of Movement My take is that you should be aware of both monsters before your meet them, since it's pretty easy to do recon in this adventure. And knowing what they are, it should be easy to make a plan which lets your group take the suckers down. Or wait until you have some more levels under your belt.
My group has not had the same experience AT ALL. Granted, the boss at the end of adventure 1 has some ridiculous save DCs, but else they had no problem with the fights. Granted, they have a really cheesy grapple-barbarian and the AP relies on a lot of "single boss" fights, so our experience might be outside the ordinary. When you say the residential district that make me wonder, since there are no monsters there which I would consider hard. Could you give some details (with a spoiler tag, if necessary)?
I believe the Universal Monster rules were updated in Bestiary 2. I don't own a copy of the Bestiary, so I can't say anything about the old wording. My advice is to just read whatever it says in the PRD closely (The PRD has the wording I posted).
It helps to read the entire ability: This special quality makes a creature's very presence unsettling to foes. Activating this ability is a free action that is usually part of an attack or charge. Opponents within range who witness the action may become frightened or shaken. The range is usually 30 feet, and the duration is usually 5d6 rounds. This ability affects only opponents with fewer Hit Dice than the creature has. An opponent can resist the effects with a successful Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 the frightful creature's racial HD + the frightful creature's Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature's descriptive text). On a failed save, the opponent is shaken, or panicked if it has 4 Hit Dice or fewer. An opponent that succeeds on the saving throw is immune to that same creature's frightful presence for 24 hours. Frightful presence is a mind-affecting fear effect. The third sentence should be "Opponents within range who witness the action may become panicked or shaken." in which case the entire ability makes sense. I think this is an editorial artifact, as the following lines makes it pretty clear that the ability is: Successful save: Immune to ability for 24h
What about applying the Spirit Ranger archetype (for Ranger)? It replaces a powerful ability gained at lvl 4, so should stay somewhat balanced, and adds spellcasting. Spirit Ranger
really? who do you figure that? I reread the Leadership feat, I didn't see anywhere that this is a cohort only modifier... as I understand it affect your leadership score - which applies to both cohort & followers. This is copied from the feat: Leadership:
Other modifiers may apply when you try to attract a cohort, as listed below.
The Leader... Modifier Has a familiar, special mount, or animal companion –2 Recruits a cohort of a different alignment –1 Caused the death of a cohort –2* * Cumulative per cohort killed. (badly formatted, check out Leadership instead.) ...followed by a line and a chart with "followers only"-modifiers. Though it's badly worded, the intention is clearly that these are "cohort only" modifiers.
As the DM, you might want to go over the list of variants first and give a few nays on anything you think just won't play out well for the group. If your player starts taking full advantage of necromancy, he could easily start soloing dungeons by himself at mid levels. If your group is okay with this, all the better, but if you have a restrictive setting, this is important to clear BEFORE the player gets his mind set on something. That depends entirely on the availability of monster corpses (for more HD per individual skeleton/zombie) and what kinds of enemies you meet. By RAW, the monsters you can create with Create Undead are pretty lame, and whether they keep class levels or not is up to the GM. Because of higher AC, normal human zombies, skeletons and ghouls will be largely ineffective, and most enemies with magic weapons and attacks can decimate the paltry shadows from Create Greater Undead. We had an undead-creating in CoT and he sucked because almost all corpses were humanoids. Those who weren't were undead beforehand, and he never managed to control them, except some shadows. That said, going all-out necromancy isn't really covered by the RAW, as it's mostly concerned with what "good" PCs would do. My advice is to go over this with your GM and find sensible house-rules. It's a great concept, but there are many things that should be worked out (for example: How the hell is he going to hide his troupe of undeads when in a civilized place?).
"Corpse Companion (Su): With a ritual requiring 8 hours, an undead lord can animate a single skeleton or zombie whose Hit Dice do not exceed her cleric level." The way I read it, that means it's a totally normal zombie or skeleton. All stats are based on the base creature's racial hit die and ability scores, as per zombie/skeleton in the Bestiary. This means that the undead lord very much wants to find a snazzy monster to animate, as most humanoid corpses will be standard zombie/skeleton, though probably with better ability scores (as they are the corpses of "fightin' men" the party has slain). If you wanna be a cool guy, you might allow a fast zombie but beware, those suckers can be mean. (A troll or tiger fast zombie is a pretty wicked killing machine).
Just to clarify: Remember that this is a "cohort only"-modifier. If you have a pet dragon, it will not affect the number of followers you get, just the level of your cohort. (And a nice GM might give you the "special power" bonus if you captured the dragon yourself).
Great stuff! It's really nice to have a checklist for what clues have been found and that sort of thing. Also good with a map for the University.
Not exactly. If you choose to "lock on" with just that attack and take a -20 penalty, you will continue doing damage with just that attack and maintain that "hold" as a free action. If you instead choose to start a normal grapple without the -20, you can use whichever natural attack (typically bite) to do damage in subsequent turns, as you are in a completely normal grapple. Reference:
As for getting rake attacks when "locked on" with just one attack and not having the grappled condition, I'm not going to open that can of worms...
Wow! Great sketch Sean! I'm afraid that I have to steal it to show my players (with proper references to where it came from of course). ;) +1 I can't draw anything beyond 2D maps or schematics, and some of my players are terrible at interpreting maps. This is going to help, even if it's just a sketch.
...he will never need to put another rank in the skill so long as the DC is never adjusted based on the bonus given. That would put his total nonus at +21, his next step is to make armbands that would give him a + 10 to craft(weapons). He will then be able to double the partys treasure intake. First of all, this is not just an issue about one item. The mentality behind creating "goggles of crafting" is obviously somewhat "min-maxing", but there's nothing wrong with that, IF that is the game you want to play. The developers have clearly stated that the magic item creation rules are guidelines, not clear-cut rules. There are many items which can be created which will unbalance gameplay, and the GM must work with (but not against!) the players to find the balance that works with each group. This is largely a matter of taste, and can often be resolved by discussion. Here are some possible solutions: Solution 1: Talk to your players, explain what you want with crafting and try to reach a consensus on what constitutes a "cheesy" item and which kinds of items should be banned. (Best solution.) Solution 2: Lay down the GM-hammer and restrict crafting to just the already existing items in the Core Rulebook. Or ban crafting outright. (This might be the most undiplomatic solution, and will upset a lot of players.) Solution 3: Don't ban anything, but reduce amount of loot and time available to the players. In this way they don't get 100% more gear and can't create everything themselves. (A bit sneaky, but restricting time is actually just common sense, the PCs can't expect the BBEG to respect a "crafting time-out".) Solution 4: Don't ban anything and allow full crafting, but up the difficulty of encounters (adding 1-2 CR to account for the insane lvls of loot). (This is the best solution for a party who want to go the min-max way and feel like their characters are super-powerful.) My perspective:
I think that crafting can remove a lot of the "wow-factor" of magic items, especially when you can recycle new loot into more "optimized" gear. But apart from obviously cheesy items (CLW at will, paladin-restoration at will, boots of haste for everyone), it won't affect game balance THAT much, especially if the GM factors it into CRs.
I know my players. There is an 80% chance that once they get down to U1, they will progress to U2 and then will want to go to U10 and then U11. Quick Fix: Make the portcullis super-jammed (ie, make it impossible to lift). This might be a bit cheesy, but it's what was intended in the adventure as I see it. Considering the encounter: I think the damage output and effects in U11 is pretty constant, there is little chance of a crazy spike killing the players in one or two rounds. If your players understand the concept of a retreat, it should be possible to escape (maybe run some slightly suboptimal tactics for the BBEG). On the other hand, if they REFUSE to run away, I would go with the quick fix above.
As a DM you HAVE to adjust to you're parties abilities. +1 Our party facerolls any encounter against a single enemy bc our grapple-barbarian can pin him pretty easily. Conversely they were extremely weak against things with level drain and paralysis, because the druid will consequently not memorize Freedom of Movement or Death Ward, even when they KNOW they will meet undead. To avoid to many easy encounters and TPKs, you have to adjust encounters. But it's a tricky art since players are chaotic beasts, bound to tale the most (to you) insanely reckless course of action or conversely shift into survivalist gear where they can lock down any enemy regardless of power.
I'm looking at my copy of SfSS...and I don't see the XP Progression...is it Medium? Yes, all Paizo Pathfinder Adventure Paths (to date) use Medium progression.
That's a great idea in theory, Mr. Spicer, but it won't work if the PCs know Adrissant was the backer for the WW cultists in the Ascanor Lodge or had some other clue. In my experience, players will try to kill or neutralize any NPC they know to be working with the bad guys, even if he's just being tricked into doing it. At least, I know my group will be trying to off Adrissant right then and there in the Lodge, without any care for subtlety. The only reason why they didn't go after any NPCs in similar encounters in our Council of Thieves campaign is that they hadn't figured who the bad guys were. Council of Thieves spoiler:
Actually, they gave the runecursed scroll in a letter to Eirtein Oberigo at the Cornucopia, so he got killed in our campaign. This was because they knew he might be involved with a crime syndicate, so they thought HE was the BBEG, or affiliated with him. It amused me to no end to inform them at the end of the campaign that he was supposed to be their "inside source" on the Council in the last adventure. However, I think your encounter would be a GREAT idea and AWESOME foreshadowing if you remove his name from almost all references in earlier adventures. Maybe even have the PCs wondering why the campaign is still going (after all, haven't they killed the BBEG?). In my opinion, not ALL campaigns need to have a "properly foreshadowed BBEG". I think it would be a shame if all Paizo APs followed the same formulaic setup. For example, I think the foreshadowing of the endgame in the two first parts of Serpent's Skull is BRILLIANT. And Carrion Crown is by it's very nature ("monster of the week"-adventures) much more disjointed than other APs. I also like the idea that it isn't one BBEG, it's the entire cult which is the enemy. I would also like if Adrissant (or some other BBEG) wasn't a high-level dude, he was just a very smart low level guy. In fact, I just decided to steal Mr. Spicer's idea and insert a low level WW "facilitator" in Caliphas, a guy who came up with or at least planned a big part of the WW grand scheme. Even if the PCs kill him, the plan is still in motion and they gain very little by it. I think that would also fit bette with the 'horror' theme in contrast to a more 'heroic' "We killed him, the kingdom is saved!"
Subtitle: Grappling is Pretty Awesome So, my players had the feast with the Gorilla King, and our Barbarian did all the trials. Trial 1: Rage + Strength Surge. 'Nuff said. Trial 2: Lucky 20 on Diplomacy check aided by other party members: 40 total, +2 for good story and props. Here they had brought porters who paraded the heads of enemies they had slain, especially the ones our Barbarian King of Saventh-Yhi (self-proclaimed) pinned and pummeled to death. This included every large monster they have met (the expedition has a taxidermist who's job it is to preserve these heads). Trial 3: The Barbarian King demonstrably threw all his weapons on the ground, and took of his armor. He accepted only one buff, a Enlarge Person potion from our bard (CL 6, so it lasts for a while). I allowed an Intimidate check to make the Gorilla King feel like he had to lay down his falchion, which he of course made. Both kings ready, this is how the combat went: Round 1: Barbarian walks up to GK, starts grapple. GK makes full attack with claws (1 crit) and rends. (Note that this round would have been identical had the GK been armed, as he would have to throw away the falchion. So these trials were run EXACTLY as written.)
The Gorilla King then acknowledged the Barbarian King as rightful king of Saventh-Yhi, and left a small garrison to assist in the coming war with the serpentfolk. This was our Barbarian's finest day, and one of our funniest session, so I wanted to share our experience. So, anyone else had an experience like this, with one character stealing the entire show? And anyone think grapple is too awesome?
We have a group with a grapple-barbarian, druid, bard and a Sorc/DD. Even though I allowed the Sorc to have permanent claws, he isn't that crazy. Yes, he has impressive stats, but his lower BAB and shitty Spell DCs makes him suboptimal as a fighter or caster. However, he is almost unkillable (Barkskin + Mage Armor + Shield + Mirror Image + Displacement makes for one unhittable PC). In the end, I think this depends on yout group. Against a "maximized" fighter, the DD isn't that good. But in a group that's not optimized, the DD might be a bit over the top, because there really isn't much variety in the class. It's just Fighter 4/Sorc 1 or Sorc 5 + DD (and the DD prestige class has a total of 0 choices with regard to class abilities).
My group hates Dominate Person like the plague (Council of Thieves was our previous AP). They Bought a Horn of Goodness in Kalabuto or Eleder (yes, they used almost all their cash on it). When they entered the hut and met Zakiyya the bard carrying the Horn said "Invited for dinner? I think not! This is a trap!" and blew the horn (I think this hunch was supported by our druid rolling a phenomenal Sense Motive, but it was mostly a metagaming hunch). All dancers but one made their save (I made the hut pretty cramped, not thinking about the Horn), and one of them screamed "Zakiyya is a demon!". Two rounds later she was pinned on the ground and pummeled to death by our barbarian. The problem with playing with players who were raised on WoD with a sadistic GM is that they can detect a fishy situation from miles away. It might also be the fact that I'm not that hot on "random guys you just met try to trick you", I'm much more a "the guy who helped you when you were lvl 1 was just using you and now he's duping you into taking the blame for some stuff" which my players usually don't detect that easily.
That said, I'm unsure what level we were at that stage compared with Carrion Crown. Council of Thieves spoiler:
In the Trial, you are supposed to be around lvl 6 at that point in the adventure, if you're lucky at lvl 7. The similar encounter in CoT is at lvl 7, since it is at the very start of the Infernal Syndrome (which you are supposed to start at lvl 7). In my opinion the Erinyes is a totally OK encounter, and it will show which PCs are solely focused on melee. But I agree that an Erinyes is a difficult opponent. However, if our current Serpent's Skull group met her, she would be dead: Our sorcerer would cast Fly on the barbarian, and he would grapple her to death. Against them, she's a simple fight.
Do these two feats stack? Ie, do they grant two Attacks of Opportunity (one of which must be unarmed)? Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you. This attack must be an unarmed strike. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity. I ask because on of my players want to play a trip monkey, and I feel they might be a bit over the top together. (We assume, of course, that the character has Combat Reflexes.)
+1 The Erinyes in Council of Thieves is the same problem. It isn't a problem if the PCs are a bit more versatile. Any melee dude should still carry a ranged weapon. And Scorching Ray doesn't work against a whole HEAP of enemies, any caster worth his salt knows not to rely on only fire damage.
Ok, here's my five cents on the Priest: Compared to the cleric, he gets:
He loses:
My assessment:
My Verdict:
Death Ward is no more "game-breaking" than Resist Energy. In some encounters it is pretty good, but in others it's just ok. Here are some hypothetical encounters: Encounter 1: A bunch of Spectres. Here Death Ward is crazy good, but this is also an encounter which will DESTROY a party without it. Encounter 2: Some "normal enemies" plus a few level-draining creatures. Here Death Ward is OK, but no more crazy than Resist Energy vs a fire-based creature. And here Dispel Magic comes in too, as Mr. Dog mentioned. In both cases, your are using four 4th lvl spell slots to save your party for one or two encounters (assuming they use a minute or two between encounters to heal up or the like). If you only protect the fighter, I would think it totally justified by the monsters to try to attack another party member. Most incorporeal undead have pretty good int scores, and they know they didn't drain lvls (since they didn't get temp hp). Four lvl 4 spell slots for a couple of encounters is a pretty big price to pay at any level (it will eat up most high lvl spells for a cleric throughout this AP). Also, in an encounter with purely spectres, I would have the spectres run away if they met a party which was all protected by Death Ward. If they would wait until they saw the party was injured or just PC lvl x min is up to how much of a dick GM you want to be, but they would under no circumstances impotently claw at the PCs while the fighter dices them up with his magic sword. And since they can just run away through walls and floors, they will probably get away.
Actually, unless you also miss by 10+, a natural 1 when Activating Blindly has no additional penalty, and if you have a skill bonus of +24 or more, you can activate blindly with automatic success (assuming DC 25, some stuff have higher DC).
Look, I'll be 100% honest: I didn't read you entire post, but I have some tips on integrating adventure 3 and 4. Level Balance:
RIDICULOUS power:
Hold Monster at will. "Pacing" My group focused on exploring and finding the Vaults much more than dealing with natives, and worked at a frenzied pace (in game time). As such, when they diverted their attention to the tribes and expeditions they were super-powerful and only a week or so had passed. I also dropped the ball when it came to introducing the meta-plot, so some of the events in adventure 4 got jammed in in a manner I'm not that proud of. So, advice: Think about the timing of the events, and be prepared to have the NPCs work at "superspeed". This might feel a bit fishy, but the other alternative is the PCs being done with looting the city in two weeks (we are at the end with one Vault left, and did it in three weeks of game time).
I've found that a laptop with internet (or notebook or iPad) purely dedicated to PRD-searches is a great game aid. Having a bunch of tabs open on relevant stuff (complicated spells the PCs use a lot, grappling, Universal Monster Rules, underwater combat) can really speed up the rules-checking process.
I think it depends on whether you roll for random encounters or put them in. Personally I put them in where I want to either liven up a flat spot, lead the group somewhere, or just generally add a bit more of a challenge. Must admit that with Serpent's skull AP I've found that it hasn't been that easy for the players and we've had one death per book so far. The diseases, difficult terrain and limited resource access has made it a really tough for my players in some sections. +1 Also, there is a serious dinosaur (more specifically T-Rex) deficiency in this AP, I fixed it with a "random" encounter. Though it lost some of it's magic when I said "You can hear the sounds of a huge creature out in the jungle" and one of my players scream "T-REEEEEEX!!! Let's go kill it!".
Advice: when you run across something you're unsure about ... MAKE IT UP. Sure, go back later and look it up, but rather than drag the game to a dead stop while people go rules hunting, just do whatever makes sense. Nobody will care. Really. Except your closest friends, who, because they know you and don't feel the same pressure to be agreeable to someone new, will usually have no qualms about bringing the entire game to a screeching halt just to get the rules exactly right (usually when a player want to do something outrageous like trip a snake or wall run). You're usually right, but they will still demand a full stop and rules check. That's ok too. Just be aware that your closest ally normally in the group when you're a player can become the most quarrelsome player when you're a GM, and that player is a good candidate for the job of "rules checker". (In my groups, it's always the guys I've known and played with for 10+ years who create the largest arguments.) My best advice is to be up front about what you think will be problems: Tell the players there might be "loading times" because you have to figure out how an encounter is supposed to run, ask them to check up stuff they are unsure about and a this might not be a good game to test out that Samurai/Druid/Monk-grapple build if you haven't had grapple-characters in any of your previous games (example, of course. I'm not hatin' on grapple). But your players probably know all this, since you've played with them before. Jump in, have fun.
The fact that the word incorporeal is mentioned in the description of bless weapon is redundant,unnecessary,and misleading. I'm not sure about that. Most likely we would have a very similar topic called "Incorporeal and Bless Weapon" which asked if a weapon affected by Bless Weapon can damage evil incorporeal creatures. It's very difficult to find the perfect common ground between too much explanation and too little.
Actually, against an evil incorporeal creature, it acts as a ghost touch weapon, as the spell does not grant any actual enhancement bonus. No, as stated above, it is "treated as having a +1 enhancement bonus for the purpose of" ... "striking evil incorporeal creatures". Ghost touch is not mentioned, +1 enhancement bonus is.
my first time beeing GM. Still have to get used to some of that stuff. thank you Whoah, then lvl 11+ can be a bit tricky. LOTS of stuff to prepare for since monsters and PCs have a lot of abilities. You should especially use time to plan out spellcaster encounters. It can sometimes be tricky keeping in mind all kinds of effects, contingencies and the like. And your PCs are bound to find uses for badly worded spells which will drive you mad ;) Good Luck!
Fast Bombs:
An alchemist with this discovery can quickly create enough bombs to throw more than one in a single round. The alchemist can prepare and throw additional bombs as a full-round action if his base attack bonus is high enough to grant him additional attacks. This functions just like a full-attack with a ranged weapon. An alchemist must be at least 8th level before selecting this discovery. Explosive Missile:
As a standard action, the alchemist can infuse a single arrow, crossbow bolt, or one-handed firearm bullet with the power of his bomb, load the ammunition, and shoot the ranged weapon. He must be proficient with the weapon in order to accomplish this. When the infused ammunition hits its target, it deals damage normally and detonates as if the alchemist had thrown the bomb at the target. If the explosive missile misses, it does not detonate. An alchemist must be at least 4th level before selecting this discovery. One of my players will be playing an alchemist in our next campaign, and we were wondering if these two discoveries should stack (allowing 2+ explosive missiles being fired in one full-round action). RAW right now it looks like they won't, since Explosive Missile is it's own special standard action, not the "normal" Bomb standard action. Any thoughts? (For the sake of this discussion we assume that the alchemist has rapid reload/crossbow mastery/is using a bow or whatnot so that he reload the missile weapon as a free action)
First of all, you're not supposed to be able to do the entire Sanctum in one go. It's a big place full of pretty badass enemies, I think one or two rests are in order. On p.33 in the adventure, it says:
This is how I'm planning on handling it: My players usually burn through every last power, consumable or spell before quitting a dungeon, but I'm pretty sure they will be spent after the second fight with one of the "big guys" in the dungeon (Emperor of Scales, the transmuters, the marilith, etc). I'll give them a level up then (we don't play with xp rewards as we prefer following the adventure's "projected progression"), probably leading to a rest outside the dungeon. Afterwards, it'll be full steam ahead to Ydersius. If not, I'll just say "ok, you get whatever powers you were supposed to get this lvl, carry on" since it's just spells/day for the sorcerer and druid, and I don't think it's a gamebreaker to say that they "feel reinvigorated" and gain their slots. In the end, the adventure is designed with a rest in the middle of the dungeon and Mr Y is a tough customer, giving the PCs a "free rest" probably won't give tham a unfair advantage. Hope that helps a little bit.
(note that Rapid Shot lets you shot one additional time this round even if the normal reloading time would be as higher as a full-round action, it basically gives a free action reloading before your additional attack) Are you saying that you believe Rapid Shot lets you reload any weapon as a free action? I don't want to open such a can of worms in a thread about something else, but that's just wrong. Because I see no reference to this in the feat, simply that it lets you do an additional attack (which would then follow the normal rules as if it came from increased BAB, requiring reloading to be a free action). This seems to be the general consensus on the boards too. If I have misinterpreted you, I apologize for my nitpicking.
The goblin and other small races have it as negates by the math. I thought it was replace until I did some reverse engineering. I think the choice of negate/replace is a bit misleading, as I interpret "negate" as "both modifiers are added, and they cancel out" and replace as "only the special modifier in the CMB/CMD definition is added". The Goblin in the Bestiary clearly follows the "replace"-idea, so I think we are talking past each other. Goblin stats: The Goblin has CMB +0 and CMD 12 CMB: +1 BAB +0 str -1 size = +0
Here we clearly see that only the negative "special" CM-modifier is added.
If this is a particular problem in Race to Ruin, it might be because you get to rest between almost all encounters. Just like the first two adventures in Kingmaker, having the ability to rest between all fights makes them a lot easier (since the PCs can unload several 1/day-abilities). The same CAN be done on the Shiv, but there you have a larger chance of monsters following you home. This will be a recurring balance problem if it's caused by too much resting, as the first adventure with a large-size dungeon is adventure #5. What I did in our games was to add one or two weaker monsters and maybe up the big guys' hp by around 30% in most encounters. The "the other guys might get there first"-factor in adventure #3 also made my players use each day to he fullest, not just sleep all day.
They replace. You do not have the normal size modifiers to hit on CMB/CMD. Regarding CMB, the PRD says: When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. Regarding CMD: Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMD when resisting specific maneuvers. A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. The section abut CMB talks about "bonuses", so it's pretty vague, but it seems like if normal size modifiers were in there, they would have mentioned it. The section about CMD specifically states which bonus types are added, and size isn't among them. If the normal size modifiers should be added, only negative ones would be, as per the "Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD". And regardless, just look at a random monster in the Bestiary, and you will see that none of them have negative modifiers for being large. All follow the "BAB + str mod + size mod (+4 for grab)"-formula. Large creatures have huge CMB/CMDs.
German distributor Ulisses Spiele put out this free pdf. I'm pretty sure that pdf is illegal, or at least not what Paizo would want you to post. Regardless of country, I think publishing on the web is outside "personal use". It's content that you should pay for, either through Adventure Path #39, or the Map Folio. I used the map folio pdfs for both Serpent's Skull and Kingmaker, printed to appropriate sizes.
The problem with allowing for the buying of wands with reduced charge cost is that at the extreme end of a one-charge wand, that wand is cheaper than a scroll (15gp vs 25gp for CLW, for example), and in all respects superior (spell trigger activation, not spell completion, so no AoO). This makes scrolls obsolete. EDIT: Obsolete up to lvl 4 spells, ofc. A second factor is that a wand with a reduced number of charges works funnily with regards to the Gold Limit. For example, you can't buy a wand of CMW in a place with a 2000 Gold Limit, but you could buy one with 10 charges. This might circumvent the role of the Gold Limit, which is to prevent PCs from buying to powerful stuff (as they can buy five 10-charge wands, which is arguably better than one 50-charge since it can be spread around in the party). This all depends on how heavy-handed you are with the Magic Economy rules as a GM, but I think it's easy to stray into Cheese Country with reduced-charge wands.
I talked to my group about this, and we included adventure 4 within adventure 3 (I won't say how, that might spoil it). This leads to the possibility of getting into extremely difficult fights early on. We went with it, and it has been great fun. So far, we have had one death and one TPK during this adventure. The death was from a normal encounter at the start of adventure 3 so it was "by the book", the second because my players flat-out refused to take my hints about them walking into a dangerous encounter. But I think the "style" used in adventure 1 will fit neatly with adventures 3,4 and 5. It's also a welcome break from the usual "we're fully rested and buffed, we should be able to handle any encounter since it's appropriate for our lvl"-mentality that comes from playing a normal railroad adventure. For spoilers:
TPK spoiler: The Gray Nisps in the Flooded Vault (C3) are RIDICULOUS. 3x Hold Monster at will is guaranteed TPK unless the party has Freedom of Movement. I asked "don't you guys think Freedom of Movement might be a good idea in here? It's underwater, wouldn't that spell just make things a lot easier?
If you want something "official", the Pathfinder Chronicles Podcast Paizocon 2011 Special part 1 (man, that's a long title) includes a seminar on making homebrew rules. During the seminar the head design guys at Paizo explicitly say that the table for crafting is meant to be guidelines, and they are perfectly aware that it can easily be broken. You can play that to your players if they don't think "forum trolls and too-harsh GMs" (just guessing, but that's what one of my players would say if he doesn't agree with a forum opinion) isn't an authoritative source for rules. Link:
Well, I think Eldritch Claws is the kind of feat that isn't meant to be "optimal", but for either a very special build or a "benchmark" for people who want to create their own feats.
2) I agree that according to RAW, the bite attack is not magical, but I also agree that it probably should have been magical as well as the claw attacks. If you explain this argument to your GM, I'm sure that they would also agree. (I hope so anyway.) I believe that is the job of Arcane Strike. At least, that's how we did it in my campaign. A clawing Dragon Disciple probably wants that feat, as it's almost the same as Weapon Specialization(Claws). (Though, granted, we allowed our DD to have permanent claws because we felt that was cool, so he has more incentives to focus on clawing)
Note that the Grappling creature cannot perform Attacks of Opportunity (assuming it has the grappled condition), so the rogue should be able to move into a flanking position pretty easily. Note: Though the grappled creature does not "threaten" the grappler (as he cannot do AoOs), we play with him setting up flanking, as the grappler is distracted by him (but I see this as outside RAW). Now that I think about it, does he threaten? I mean, he can't USE the AoOs, but does he still count as "threatening?
I think we'll have to conclude with agreeing to disagree. My position is still that one can damage with the same natural weapon twice with Greater Grapple, though I am not decided on one or two bites per round from Animal Fury. I do think that the Animal Fury bite should not depend on whether the grapple check is successful or not, just because I don't like the "you fail, so you get a free attack"-aspect of it. In my mind it should be changed to a "on the first grapple check each round"- or "on each grapple check"-wording. In the end, I think this issue lives out there on the margins of the rules, and we will end up using what works best in our group. PS: Regarding the blog post and the uses for grappling:
We are basically discussing two different things: 1. Does Animal Fury grant a bonus attack on both grapple actions granted by Greater Grapple?
I get a bit confused by this. I know I can Cleave with my natural attacks (off the top of my head, a Stegosaurus does this). Cleave makes no reference to natural attacks. I have yet to see a power/spell which specifically allows you more natural attacks when it grants bonus attacks (I would say Haste, for example, is worded to not allow natural attacks). In RAW, neither the Universal Monster Rules or the PRD mentions a hard cap, the only reference to not getting attacks in from high BAB during the Full Attack action. And in any case as daeruin stated, dealing damage on a grapple check IS NOT an attack, it is simply dealing damage equal to that attack. As for the Animal Fury bite, I think your position needs to be modified. I can see Revan's view, that you get a free bite on your first grapple action and not on the second, and this is an interpretation of Animal Fury decoupled from Greater Grapple. However, I cannot see that it is dependent on a successful check, as that makes succeeding on your first check reduce the efficacy of your second grapple action. My interpretation is that Greater Grapple should have the wording "both of these grapple actions count as attempts to maintain the grapple and follow the normal rules, though only one needs to succeed for you to maintain the grapple".
|
