like_a_god's page

DrDew,

I'd say that it's time to sit down with your players and have a heart to heart about whether or not they really want to play. Simply put, gaming is a two way-street and a successful campaign requires effort on both the part of the players and the DM. I see nothing wrong with you requiring them to actually read the core book, especially the stuff that is pertinent to their characters. After all, they are expecting you to do that and much more.

If it simply the fact that they're overwhelmed by the rules you could have a session which simply covers the rules, including some mock encounters. This would allow them to gain a good understanding of the rules without harm to their characters. And, you'll be able to focus on the roleplaying more than rules in later sessions.

like_a_god

I need some clarification regarding the Sift Spell. What exactly does it do?

Sift Spell

Relevant Text of Spell
Area: 10ft cube.

Description:
You examine an area at range as if you were searching for fine details with the Perception skill. Make a Perception check with a -5 penalty, modified as normal for conditions. No penalty is applied for distance. Apply the result against the DC for any hidden features, such as secret doors, traps, or hidden treasure. You must be able to see the area you are attempting to search, and you only find details that can be perceived with sight or touch. Sift detects only objects and features, not actual creatures.

Question
Does the spell allow you to view the 10ft cube as if you were exploring it from a variety of angles or does it act similar to using binoculars and takes distance out of the equation?

If the first is correct then a caster could see around counters or other obstacles that would normally obscure his view. The second would limit the caster to only what he could normally observe given where he is standing but at a higher level of detail.

Thanks

like_a_god

Does anyone have a quick reference for the schools of Magic in Pathfinder? Something that simply lists a small blurb on what each school does or the spells that fall under it? My players are making great use of Detect Magic and this would be awesome to include on my DM screen.

Thanks
like_a_god

a Kn: Aracana check would do it:

.
.

.
.

• Identify auras while using detect magic Arcana 15 + spell level
  
• Identify a spell effect that is in place Arcana 20 + spell level
  
• Identify materials manufactured by magic Arcana 20 + spell level
  
• Identify a spell that just targeted you Arcana 25 + spell level
  
• Identify the spells cast using a specific material component Arcana 20
  

Happler,

Can you provide a source?

Thanks
like_a_god

*Edit*... Okay, nvm... I'm an idiot I forgot about the chart on page 101 of the Core.

Thanks!

Off the top of my head, no. I'd have to read through every single spell in the game to be sure, however.

Of course, they don't need to know the exact spell; dispel magic and remove curse don't care what's causing the bad thing, they just fix it.

Now, if the DM has introduced a [i]house rule..

BobChuck,

Thanks for the reply... nope no house rule here. And yes, there are numerous avenues that the party has to get rid of the effect, if they choose to do so.

If they have full access to the animal I would allow them to use Detect Magic in an identical way they would to Identify a Magic Item for more specific details.

Not sure that this is really a viable options. I'm not really sure what 'properties' of the animal would be revealed. The spells source isn't the animal itself, the shape is just its result.

The true seeing spell or an item using it (such as the famous gem) will allow you to see the true nature of "polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things," which would pretty much hip them to what spell was (probably) used.

Sure, 'True Seeing' would give them definitive evidence that the animal is a human but give them nothing more than that. They still have to speculate as to it's cause, just as they do with a successful Knowledge(Arcana)check.

Hello,

An issue came up during my last session that I need some clarification on. I’ll abstract the situation a bit since I have players that cruise these boards and, since the situation hasn’t been completely resolved in game, I don’t want to ruin it for them (or me).

Let’s say that an NPC is under spell ‘X’. Spell ‘X’ changes the NPC’s form from human to animal.

The party has encountered the animal. Through successful Knowledge (Nature) checks they have determined that the animal is behaving unusually. This causes the party to pause and ponder what is up with the animal.

The party can determine rather easily that the animal is under the effect of a spell. However, I cannot find any skills or abilities that would allow them to concretely determine that spell ‘X’ was used to change the NPC from a human into an animal. Am I missing something?

The party can use ‘Detect Magic’ to determine that there is a magical aura surrounding the animal and its relative strength. A successful Knowledge (Arcana) check would also reveal that the magic associated with the aura is of the ‘Transmutation’ school. However, that is all that can be determined by 'Detect Magic'.

The party could then try and use Knowledge (Arcana) to come up with a list of spells of the transmutation school that might be causing the animal before them to behave strangely. Given the school of magic, I don’t think it’s much of a leap for the party to conclude that the animal is something other than what it seems. Perhaps, it’s not an animal at all but a person changed into one. Still, this is all speculation on the part of the party. Knowledge (Arcana) cannot determine with any certainty that the change is the result of spell ‘X’

Given the way I’m reading it, Spellcraft seems to be useless in this situation. While Spellcraft could be used to determine, at least for the purposes of counter spelling, the spell being cast by an NPC, that circumstance is long past. Furthermore, since the animal is not an item it cannot be used in unison with ‘Detect Magic’ or ‘Identify’.

Is there something I’m missing? Is there actually a way for the party to determine that spell ‘X’ is responsible for the fate of the NPC?

Thanks,

like_a_god

Ah, that clear things up!

Thanks

Howdy,

Just a quick question. Say monster's 'melee' entry reads "2 claws +7 (1d6+2), bite +7 (1d4+2), gore +7 (1d4+2)". I understand that it can all of them in a full round action. However, if the creature is limited to a standard action and it wants to claw, is the standard attack 1 claw or 2 claws?

I'm just not sure if the '2 claws' portion is suppose to be read as 'claw +7, claw +7' indicating 2 separate attacks or '2 claws +7' as a single attack.

Thanks

like_a_god

EL essentially did the same thing that CR did; it gave you a number to judge how dangerous an encounter was based upon the combination of monsters, traps, and other elements. We dropped the term "Encounter Level" (EL) because it was too confusing to a lot of folks having two phrases being different even though they meant the same thing.

James,

Thanks for weighing in again. I appreciate the way that you guys always seem to take into account the needs of the players.

Having said that, I think that the CR and EL actually represented two different things.

Challenge Rating (CR) = Refers to the relative power of singular creatures, traps et.

Encounter Level (EL) = Refers to the relative difficulty of an encounter, which is made up of (usually) a grouping of creatures, traps etc. (each of which may vary in their CR)

Merging these muddied the waters, at least for me. As a DM, I would have preferred to make use of both of these terms since it allows me to better understand the relative power of creatures singularly, by their CR, and how much threat they represent when combined with others, the EL.

Regardless, I believe you have answered my initial question and I have a better understanding of what CR relates to in the Pathfinder system. I know that I'm trying hard to unlearn some of the mechanics of the 3.0/3.5 system and some things are just easier to let go of than others.

like_a_god

Fergie,

Thanks for the reply. I thought that might be the case.

Wraithstrike,

EL does not appear in the PF rules, but it still exist. It is just CR.
Example: 2 CR 3 creatures are one CR 5 combat.
In 3.5 it would be an EL 5 combat.

I appreciate the explination. However, I am trying to understand the creation mechanic in Pathfinder as it is written in the Core Rulebook. There must have been a good reason for the editors to drop the Encounter Level [EL] from usage when they updated the rules from 3.0/3.5. Hence, I have to set it aside. (Although I must admit that having CR represent both a creature's challenge rating AND an encounter's challenge rating, is just asking for confusion.)

Thanks!

like_a_god

... These can be taken individually or mixed and matched to create encounters that have an Encounter Level or EL. EL is used for determining experience and treasure...

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/gamemastering.html

Fergie,

Thanks for the reply. Could you point out exactly where the text talks about the "Encounter Level"? I haven't found it in the Core Rulebook or on the page you provided a link to. I know this was used in 3.0/3.5 but I've not seen it used in Pathfinder.

Thanks,

like_a_god

CR represents both.

As far as APL goes, a creature with a CR equal to the party's APL should be a moderate challenge but not a significant danger. A group should be able to take on several monsters of a CR equal to their APL per day (maybe four to six).

James,

Thanks for the quick reply. That helps to clear a few things up in regards to CR.

like_a_god

Hello,

So, I understand that the CR of a creature or encounter signifies the "relative danger presented by a monster, trap [etc...]" and that the higher the CR the "... more dangerous the encounter." (Core Rulebook, 397)

Now, my question is "Relative to what?"

Does the CR represent the relative difficulty/threat between creatures? For instance, an orc is much less a threat than a dragon and, therefore, has a much MUCH lower CR than the dragon.

Or, does the CR represent the danger relative to the party APL? In other words, for a party with a APL of 5 an creature with a CR of 1 would be much less challenging than a creature with a CR 10.

Thanks in advance,

like_a_god

I'm trying to get a good handle on developing encounters according to RAW so that I know what I need to tweak, given my current players styles and gaming abilities, in order to offer a fulfilling experience.

One of the questions I have is whether or not the different point buys have any effect on calculating APL (Average Party Level)? I remember seeing somewhere that the Core Rulebook schematic is based on the 15 point buy. However, if this is indeed the case, is there any information available on what to do when building encounters for characters who were created using 20 or 25 point buys?

It seems reasonable to me that, all other things being equal, a character built on a 25 point by should be more 'powerful' than one built with a 15 point buy. As such, a party of 25 point buy characters should be able to handle more than a 15 point party during an 'average' encounter. But, I can't find this reflected in encounter creation laid out in the Core Rulebook.

Thanks

like_a_god

I might have missed it, but did you say what levels the characters are?

My experience is generally that companions and eidolons seem really strong at the low levels and a little less overpowering as you move on up.

Well, I had a long running campaign that lasted for almost a year. Had a druid in that that went from 1st level until 5th. More recently, we were doing a series of one-shots to try out new characters and in one session I had 2 summoners. For that session the party was made up of 8th level characters. I think the common consensus was that the edilons might be a little too powerful, but I'm withholding judgment until I see more of them in a variety of situations. Still, my heart dropped a bit when one of them did something like 30 points of damage in one or two attacks.

like_a_god

Everyone,

Thanks for the responses to the question. I guess it boils down to whether or not the RAW mechanics meet the needs of the group playing. As such, I'll have to work with the players and see if the RAW is how we want to play it or house rule it to conform with our expectations and needs.

like_a_god

Everyone,

Thanks for the replies and advice. I believe my original question has been answered. Simply put, all character resources, including familiars, eidolons etc. are included in 'character level' and, therefore, only player characters are used to determine APL.

Still, I find that I am a little dissatisfied by the fact that 'hit economy' has little mention in the rules for creating an encounter and I'll have to make sure to keep that in mind moving forward.

like_a_god

All HDs of creatures need to be taken into account when determining the CR....

...This ended up bringing up another big question: How would a city siege work if the CR doesn't take into account the other allies in the city?...

Just to clarify, do you mean APL instead of CR?

Also, thanks for taking the time to respond and flesh in more of the argument on your side.

like_a_god

Howdy,

Do animal companions and eidolons take their actions on the turn of the character to which they are linked or do they have their own initiatives?

I've always run the game under the assumption that since the druid needs to direct the actions of the animal companion and, therefore, the animal's actions take place during his turn. After all, if the druid decides to 'push' the animal he needs to take a 'move action' to do so, something he can't do while it isn't his turn.

I assumed that this sort of thing also translated to eidolons and familiars, but my players brought up the fact that there is an eidolon option that gives them an improved initiative score.

Thanks,

like_a_god

Howdy,

My group has been doing a series of one-shots to try out classes that we haven't played before, such as those in the APG, at different levels and in different situations. What I'm finding, as the DM, is that the group often blows through 'average', 'challenging' and 'hard' encounters according to the rules laid out in the Core Rulebook, pages 397-398.

One of the things I've noticed is that when the group has no animal companions, cohorts, eidolons or other such allies, the encounters seem to be right in line with what I'd consider 'average', 'challenging' or 'hard'.

As such, many players in my group feel that animal companions, eidolons, cohorts etc. should be considered when determining the APL of an encounter. They point to the 'Adding NPC's' section on page 398 as proof that this is the case. In turn they argue that when I was planning for the encounters last sessions that while the APL was 8 when including just the player characters, the party really had a APL of 11 due to their animal companions and eidolons.

I disagree with their assessment. First, there is the sentence in 'Step 1' on page 397 that states you determine APL "average level of your PLAYER characters". Secondly, I've always worked under the assumption that concept of 'Character Level' includes all the resources they have access to whether its a class feature, such as an animal companion or eidolon, or wealth, such as magic items and mundane equipment. It seems like the system is broken if, for instance, a ranger who has an animal companion is considered more powerful, according to APL calculation, than one who chooses to buff his party members.

Which of us is correct? Do you simply take the average level of your player characters when determining APL or do you take the average level of your player characters AND also add that of any animal companions, cohorts, eidolons etc, when determining it?

Thanks,
like_a_god

We're looking for a few more players for Pathfinder Society games in BOULDER, CO. Let us know if you're interested.

We do scheduling for north denver metro and Boulder games at:
www.yahoogroups.com/group/LakewoodPath

Thanks,

Jay

Jay,

I run an active roleplaying forum, www.rpgroundtable.com. Most of my players are located in the Boulder CO area and we are really having a blast with the Pathfinder system. Feel free to come on the boards and post about the Pathfinder games you need players for.

I'll take a gander at the yahoo groups page as well.

Matthew
a.k.a like_a_god

... Pathfinder is an improvement, but still doesn't scratch my itch. I'm curious if anyone is using (or considering) Diplomacy as either an opposed check or as an "attack." I was thinking about the mechanics for these two methods. What do you think of the following...

Whatever you go with, realize that the Diplomacy skill has a built in limitation:

"You cannot use Diplomacy to influence a given creature’s attitude more than once in a 24 hour period."

This means that if a NPC is at the low end of the spectrum in attitude toward the PC's it's going to take a much longer time to shift them to friendly than many DM's/Players realize, at least according to RAW.

As such, Bluff and Intimidate are usually more effective if you are in a time crunch.

I am sure this idea is not a new one... has anyone given much thought to this before? What is the general consensus on the "ranged rogue"?

I've got a player in my campaign that is running with a ranged rogue. While I was unwilling to allow a feat that simply granted ranged sneak attacks (due to balance issues), I was more than willing to work with the player to find a solution that would allow his ranged rogue archer to be viable and still gain sneak attacks in specific situations.

---------------------------------------------
Roguish Archery
You are adept at taking advantage of your allies flanking tactics.
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus of +2, Ability to Sneak Attack, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot

If your opponent is within 30 ft and flanked by your allies, you may attempt a Sneak Attack with a +2 circumstance bonus to attack. If there are circumstances that would hinder a Sneak Attack, such as the opponent having concealment or an immunity to the Sneak Attack, then you may not make a Sneak Attack. However, in such an occurrence you still gain +2 on attacks against the flanked opponent.
----------------------------------------------

Keep in mind I'm using the Pathfinder system but not the campaign setting. So, your mileage may vary.

like_a_god

For the animal companion to learn the bonus trick does not require Handle Animal roll. For the animal to perform the trick does require a roll.

The rules of Special Ability Link description and Handle Animal Skill description +4 circumstance bonus are talking about the same thing, the total bonus is +4 regarding the Handle Animal check.

I'd have to concur with the latter part of Grey Cat's post.

Having said that the Bonus Trick's section states

These bonus tricks don’t require any training time or Handle Animal checks, and they don’t count against the normal limit of tricks known by the animal.

And I took that to mean that the bonus trick didn't require a handle animal roll. I may have to rethink this though, especially since it's clarified a bit under "Handle Animal".

In addition, a druid’s or ranger’s animal companion knows one or more bonus tricks, which don’t count against the normal limit on tricks known and don’t require any training time or Handle Animal checks to teach.

That's the DC to teach the animal the trick. Once an animal knows a trick, it can do that trick when commanded automatically.

James,

The skill reads:

Handle an Animal: This task involves commanding an

animal to perform a task or trick that it knows. If the animal
is wounded or has taken any nonlethal damage or ability
score damage, the DC increases by 2. If your check succeeds,
the animal performs the task or trick on its next action.

This indicates to me that the animal does not necessarily perform the trick automatically. Granted, the DC is low but in combat I'd not allow a character to take a 10 on it, so there is a chance of failure. Can you please clarify the ruling? There may be something I missed.

Thanks

So I started with 1e/2e hybrid than moved onto 3rd. Got tired of 3rd to wards the end cause it just became about splat books it seemed. Went to 4e good disgusted and fled back to 2e. Right now I am running a dark sun 2e campaign, and when this one has it's course I am thinking about trying out pathfinder. I want to run it in Athas, so what 3.x books should I be buying in order to convert over? Is this too much work?

Any ones thoughts would help.

Any gaming system will have its pro's and con's and some work better for different types of people and the games they enjoy. I think the first question you need to answer is why you keep returning to the 1e/2e hybrid. Is it due to the mechanics? The ability for the system to be used in RPing? Obviously, if you keep trying out other systems, that it's probably not fulfilling all of these needs. Without understanding what you did and didn't like about the editions you've used, its hard to say whether or not Pathfinder would be right for you.

I've tried out pretty much everything beyond 1st edition and I've found each of them to have their own special nuances.