mtg3992's page

Organized Play Member. 27 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


Liberty's Edge

Bumping, as this will likely come up tonight . . . any help out there?

Liberty's Edge

Blood-Draining Gaze (Su) All creatures within 20 feet of a scarlet
walker are subject to the monster's eerie blood-draining gaze. (p414 RotRL Anniversary Ed)

Is this an attack which the SW has to actually make, or does it just happen if a character is withing 20'?

Liberty's Edge

DanTheS wrote:

Favored Enemy (Ex): At 1st level, a ranger selects a creature type from the ranger favored enemies table. He gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival checks against creatures of his selected type. Likewise, he gets a +2 bonus on weapon attack and damage rolls against them. A ranger may make Knowledge skill checks untrained when attempting to identify these creatures.

Maybe I'm colored by 2nd Edition tradition, where a ranger's favored enemy bonus reflected hatred and enmity towards that race, but does anyone know the logic or reasoning behind the bonus to Bluff? Seems like Intimidate would be a better fit...

Release the Ninjas!

The battlefield isn't the only place you meet your enemies.

Liberty's Edge

+1 to Story Archer

What you have is a player problem and you shouldn't try to solve player behavior by punishing their characters. You have to address the player directly. Your problem is with the player, not his character. Killing his character is no guarantee that he won't be just as disruptive with his new PC. And killing players is frowned upon in most gaming groups.

The point of sitting down at the table together is for everyone involved to have fun. If you can't get him aligned with that way of thinking, you don't need him at your table.

Liberty's Edge

From Stone Giant stat block (Beastiary):
Melee greatclub +16/+11 (2d8+12) or 2 slams +16 (1d8+8)

From Skull Ripper stat block (RotRL Anniversary):
Melee 2 claws +20 (2d6+6/19-20 plus grab), sting +20 (1d10+6
plus poison)

Question is this, if the attack line does NOT contain an "or" does that mean the monster can use all melee attacks as a full round attack?

Liberty's Edge

Thefurmonger wrote:


Liberty's Edge

When a monster's dr says 15/magic and cold iron that means you need BOTH to overcome the DR, correct?

Liberty's Edge

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
this is why a DM shouldn't bring his/her signifficant other to the gaming table. bad things happen.

Definitely not an axiom. My wife played in our 4e campaign for almost 2 years. Any time she didn't feel up to it everyone complained and begged her to join.

Liberty's Edge

setzer9999 wrote:
I’ve tried numerous, and I mean numerous, times to make a house rule to deal with what I perceive to be an irreconcilable problem with HP...

Reminder: You're playing a fantasy game.

Liberty's Edge

Jodokai wrote:
The phrase "I move to where I have a clear shot" completely negates the need for Improved Presice Shot. "I get behind them without AoO's" negates mobility. Precise shot, maybe, but the most you'll be down is -4 since cover is never an issue if you use the phrase above.

Saying phrases doesn't negate the rules. Saying you move to get a clear shot doesn't mean you can. A clear shot will still be a factor of the scene and how the DM handles it. Same thing with flanking without AoOs. You can't just say that and assume it will happen. It all has to flow from how the scene is described.

Liberty's Edge

Izar Talon wrote:
I hate playing with a grid and miniatures and everything associated with that. It reduces the game from a role-playing game to nothing but a tactical skirmish wargame

I don't see having tactical aspects a "reduction" - it's just a difference. My group is full of players who love RP and who love tactics. Using the grid means we get both in one game.

WAY back when I was playing Basic & 1e I always wished for minis to use with my games and love using them now. However, for simple fights, I frequently go gridless.

Liberty's Edge

This is the first time that I've used an adventure path and I'm running into a bit of a challenge. Everyone is having fun, so no problem there, but there’s so much story that goes with Burnt Offerings (and the other modules as well, I’m sure) that can serve to make the experience richer, but little comes to light following the encounters as written.

Any suggestions on revealing more of the backstory without forced monologues? They will likely face Nualia this week and ideally they will have a pretty full understanding of what’s going on with her.

I'm more accustomed to homebrew, where this isn't a problem, and I'm sure is less of a problem for those more accustomed to using pre-written material. Suggestions?

Liberty's Edge

What does this mean? Make a bite to hit roll and a trip roll? Or a trip roll if the bite hits? Or does he chose between bite/trip?

Liberty's Edge

I'm running We Be Goblins shortly and looks like I'll have more on hand than I anticipated: 6 PCs. Any suggestions on scaling this? I was thinking of increasing HP of single creature fights by 50% and making the 2 dog fight 3 dogs. Thoughts?

Liberty's Edge

So . . . launching this soon and we had a character generation session this week. I let everyone roll stats (best of 4d6 method). I have since learned through these forums that this AP (all APs?) is balanced for 15pt buy PCs. Did this change with the anniversary edition? Of the 5 players, 3 ended up with the equivalent of a 20/21 pt buy, but a couple got really lucky and are well above that.

I hate to tell everyone "You're OP! Re-roll!" But will that ultimately be more fun? Incidentally, it will be unusual for us to have all 5 pcs present.

Liberty's Edge

Sounds to me like your session 0 wasn't thorough enough or perhaps didn't happen. Laying out expectations up front goes a long way to avoid this kind of thing. In any case, only solution is talk. Not confront; talk.

Liberty's Edge

Haladir wrote:
I'm going to interpret your character's alignment by how you play the character.

I'm with you up to here. I want an understanding of how that player interprets their alignment and use that as the yardstick. This of course needs to be settled at session 0.

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:

I would make sure and talk as a party. Characters that "Live to destroy evil" have been very problematic for me in the past. Now I dont know your players but I have run into the absolutist who will do anything, even commit suicide just to go after some evil. Often times at the detriment to the party. Sorry maybe that's a gut reaction on my part its certainly possible to play such a character sanely, yet often its done terribly by players.

Another problem I have is I see the grim reaper as very evil itself. Is he going for a Dexter thing here? Takes evil to defeat evil kind of thing? For alignment I could see just about any alignment working to be honest. However, it would be nice to know a little bit more about the concept to lean towards a particular alignment. How far is he willing to go to stop evil? Going off the line of him being a sorc and living to destroy evil as judge, jury, and executioner I'm going to go against the grain and say chaotic.

Reasonable concerns. Fortunately, he understands the "No Alignment Is An Excuse To Act Like A Jerk Rule." We'll be having a session 0 next week so this will be covered. I know that he was thinking LE. I'd provide more on the character concept, but what I posted is about all he's shared with me. I think that in part, this concept was a reaction to his experience playing a LG dragonborn paladin of Bahumut. He loved to find creative ways to execute bad guys after interrogating them, which displeased Bahaumt but attracted the notice of Tiamat. Created some interesting scenes with that. I like the Dexter analogy, btw. I may bring that up.

Liberty's Edge

Xenh wrote:

Sounds lawfulish. Good, Lawful or Evil all would work depending on the specific flavour.

As an aside:

I am of the mindset that alignment should be removed from the game. It acts as such an oppressive set of shackles for so many and causes so many arguments that it is mellowing my buzz.

Find another mechanic for spells/effects that affect alignment and life will be better.

Just my 3.1 cp

I'm in 100% agreement on this. However, I don't want to rework a mechanic as I'm introducing my players to a completely new rules system. (We're moving from 4e.) I view alignment as a descriptor, but will use alignment RAW. I won't "punish" players for acting outside their alignment except in rare cases in which a deity is involved.

Liberty's Edge

Launching RotR soon, and I have a player who wants to play a sorcerer with undead bloodline who lives to destroy evil - but does so as judge, jury and executioner. No quarter. Views him as a very dark character - a sort of incarnation of the Grim Reaper. What alignment makes the most sense?

Liberty's Edge

Am I correct in concluding that there are no GameMastery maps to go with APs? I'm aware of the RotRL Map Folio, but my understanding is that it contains no actual grid battle maps.

If this is true, Paizo is missing out on a solid revenue opportunity. What's the point of beautifully illustrated maps that only the DM looks at? Not that I don't appreciate having nice looking maps in my source material, but I'm not coming close to that when I start scribbling on our battle mat.

Or are some of the map packs based on AP encounter maps?

Liberty's Edge

closetgamer wrote:
My group has a strict "If no one owns the book, you can't use it" rule... In addition, basically anything NOT in the Core book is usable at DM discretion only and must be OK'd for the game. This could mean your PC has to research/study/train to get a benefit or they may just be flat out allowed, or it may just be prohibited. Depends, case-by-case.

Thanks for the reply. I was thinking about the "someone in the group owns the book or it's out" approach, but the material is easily accessed online.

To clarify, I have no problem saying "no - we're sticking with Core." My questions is more, as a new group, SHOULD I say we're sticking with Core?

Liberty's Edge

So . . . played Basic & 1e way back when and jumped into 4e a couple of years ago, about to make the switch to PF.

First question: is there a GM forum here? If so, seems I can't find it.

Second: About to launch RotRL and I'm stoked. As we are new to this rule system I'm inclined to limit source materials to Core. However, one of my players really wants to play a Magus. I'm all about empowering players to be awesome and maximize their fun, but I'm concerned about opening up access to too much material right off the bat.


Liberty's Edge

Thanks for the detailed reply, Keirion. Based on everything I've learned I think I'm going with RotR. And thanks to all who took time to reply.

Liberty's Edge

As already mentioned, for PFS I suppose it's locked in. However, when information is necessary to move things forward, I personally don't get the point of a roll at all. Just RP it out and keep things moving.

Liberty's Edge

Kingmaker actually sounds really, really cool. I love cooperative world building, but my goal here is to have something easy to run. Read the module; run the adventure. I’ll have to keep that one in mind for the future. I'll have to look into Skull and Shackles. Hard to beat a ninja pirate. :)

Liberty's Edge

Looking at launching a new campaign and wanted to go with pre-printed material and take a break from writing up everything.

I wanted to hear from folks as to what their favorite APs have been & why - both from a player & GM perspective.

TIA for any input!