Here is the relevant text from the Greater Animal Aspect spell:
So... why ever take the frog option, if the otter option is clearly better? Is there some reading of this that makes frog useful in some circumstance?
I'm running Rise of the Runelords. Team is having a rematch against Xanesha, a lamia matriarch (shapechanger).
They cast Baleful Polymorph on her. She fails both saves, and is now a harmless chicken or something.
HOWEVER, the spell text:
...says that a shapechanger can revert back to normal as a standard action!!! How does this work? She failed both saves, so she's a pretty dumb chicken now. Does reverting make her a dumb chicken in a lamia body? Or does it give her everything back? I'm interested in RAI more than RAW, but I'll take anything you can give me right now.
How does Barl Breakbones (p. 180 of the revised AP) have so many spells? He has extras that go beyond the rules (at least from my limited understanding). For example, we all know that 0-level spells don't get extra spells for high spellcasting stat. And specializing in a school gets you 1 extra spell per level, but only from 1st level up. So how does a 7th level necromancer (wizard) have 5 cantrips, when the wizard progression table shows he only gets 4?
For that matter, he seems to have too many spells at every level. His intelligence of 16 gets him 1 bonus spell of levels 1-3. His necromancy specialty gets him 1 bonus spell of levels 1-4. So at 7th level:
However, Barl has 5, 7, 6, 5, 3 spells total, exactly 1 extra spell at every level. This makes me think that there is a flat +1 to all spell levels that I'm missing, but I cannot think of anything that gives extra 0-levels like that, so I'm stumped. How's he doing it?
EDIT: Never mind, kinda. I found old posts from 2013 that explain how Thassalonian specialists work. Still doesn't explain getting extra cantrips, as far as I can tell, but it explains the other stuff.
Questions about the absolute chaos at my gaming table (Zantus dead, Foxglove homes captured, Turandarok academy raided)
Let's just focus on one example - breaking into the Academy, beating up Ilsoari and then tossing him 5-10 gp "for his troubles"? Are you kidding me? No consequences from the Sheriff/town guard? Ilsoari did what? Eat his lumps and not even lodge a complaint? Not even remotely realistic.
LOL. None of what you're describing happened. It didn't occur to you that I'd gloss over the details of an encounter to keep my 14 paragraphs from billowing up to 25 paragraphs?
There were plenty of consequences. I didn't go over them because I wasn't posting to get a review of that. I had other questions, so I asked the other questions.
And thankfully, some other people were considerate enough to actually answer them. So thanks everyone else, for that.
Questions about the absolute chaos at my gaming table (Zantus dead, Foxglove homes captured, Turandarok academy raided)
Ransom? Surely you mean a fine or something like that?
I think I used the correct word. There used to be a process whereby a criminal could be held for ransom instead of killed. The idea was that some criminals were special or powerful somehow, and someone might want them back safely. So if a messenger for a lord was found in another city doing something criminal, the guards may not hack his/her hand off, or behead the criminal, or anything like that. Instead, they would put word out to the lord in that other location, saying, "Your guy is getting put down, unless you have some way to restore his/her honor."
I do not remember what that system was actually called (there is a word for it), but that sounds a lot like holding someone for ransom, so it's the best word I've got until I can recall or find the original article that talked about this system.
Will Ironbriar still be in the Seven's Sawmill?
Yeah, he's there in the sense that mechanically everything works the same, but I just crossed out his name and put "Titus" in its place.
Questions about the absolute chaos at my gaming table (Zantus dead, Foxglove homes captured, Turandarok academy raided)
How is their relationship with Ven Vinder, anyway?
Weirdly, really good, considering he's dead. They completely thwarted the initial encounter with Ven, because Shayliss seduced a female PC. The player of that PC then did some amazing bluffs to suggest to Ven that he was weird/creepy for stalking his daughter's "innocent" friendships. I sorta had Ven recoil from this and while he may suspect something gay, he certainly doesn't want any women of Sandpoint flagging him as a creep. So he's decided to stay far away from interfering with the relationship.
Then Katrine was murdered, and Ven couldn't console Shayliss. So the player retired her PC so that she could be in a full-time relationship with Shayliss and give her emotional support.
Then Ven was killed in the random rolls when the derro attacked town. So now Shayliss is desperately clinging to the retired PC as her only stable relationship left.
Ven never got to be a bad guy in my campaign.
If the PCs continue using the townhouse as a base of operations, they should sometimes notice people lurking outside, keeping an eye on it - undercover guards. The neighbors will also likely want to move out of the area, resulting in more abandoned buildings with unsavory types living in them.
I like all of this. Thanks!
The magistrate, by the way, should be Justice Ironbriar, so he can take steps to arrange for their crime to be discovered.
Ironbriar isn't in my campaign. I mean, he exists, but almost all references to him have been dropped. The PCs got into a huge fight in the Fatman's Feedbag, and ended up murder-hoboing a few of the crime bosses in Sandpoint, without even knowing that they were crime bosses. They just did it for fun. The Scarnetti family has been after them ever since. So everything in module 2 that points to Magnimar is just a lure to get the PCs into the Seven's Sawmill, where all the bad guys are the surviving crime bosses from Sandpoint, including Titus Scarnetti.
The players may inadvertently clear Sandpoint of all crime, without even realizing it. Or the PCs may be ambushed and die. Not sure how that'll go yet.
(A side-note about this. The players have exhibited NO curiosity about what's happening in regards to the saw mills or the Scarnettis. For example, when they killed the two faceless stalkers, I had a moment where the faceless stalker saw the fake PC Foxglove... and the stalker was confused -- not like "what the hell is going on" but more like "Hey Aldern why are you attacking us when you're in on the plan?" AND THE STALKER SAID AS MUCH, mid-combat. The players? "Huh. Guess we'll never know what that's about. We kill him." They could have stopped combat and bluffed, "Yeah, I'm the real Aldern Foxglove. Remind me about the plan and who's in charge?" But nope. Oh well. The revenge moment in the mill may be completely lost on them, or totally take them by surprise. We'll see.)
Zed needs more than an alignment change - he needs a talking to out of character. That kind of aggression will disrupt the table, and it will make later challenges more difficult for them. Zed needs to tone it down.
Thanks! I've decided that after the guards take statements from all the witnesses, they are going to believe the PC impersonating Foxglove, BUT they are going to flag Zed as a thug and demand that Foxglove turn him in. If the PCs refuse, then I'll handwave a huge guard battle that ends with their expulsion from the city. If the PCs comply, then only Zed will be banished, which essentially forces the character and player out of the next couple of game days. I'd imagine that the player will just roll up something new, but who knows? If the players try anything diplomatic, the guards will note that situations like this are sometimes also resolved by paying a ransom. So I'll take a little bit of funds from them and let Zed stay, which might change behavior a little bit, but I cannot say for sure.
I think I'll give Zed the option of chaotic neutral or chaotic evil for his new alignment.
So I'd like to spitball with some other GMs and see if there are sensible outcomes to the crazy things happening in my game.
The players have been obsessed about finding the Sandpoint Devil. I put together a HUGE multi-map location on the Devil's Platter for them to explore, and eventually fight/capture the Sandpoint Devil.
To find the Sandpoint Devil, they began asking around town, and heard the rumor that Ilsoari at Turandarok Academy kept the devil in his basement. They came into the academy and asked the orphans, "Who here is keeping the Sandpoint Devil in their basement?" Ilsoari ran, trying to get to the basement & lock the door. The players assumed it meant he was guilty of something, so they chased, broke down the door, and one player, Zed, beat the crap out of Ilsoari. They eventually learned that there was no Sandpoint Devil there; it was a rumor to keep the orphans in line.
They gave him 5 or 10 gold for the trouble, and then walked out past a bunch of cowering orphans, and left.
They eventually found the Sandpoint Devil's lair, but had to fight through a bunch of derro that lived in the cave system. Eventually the derro realized they were going to lose and they ditched their lair, went to Sandpoint, and killed as many citizens as possible before being put down. They chanted, "You raid us, we raid you! You kill us, we kill you!"
The players remained in the derro lair, scoping out the entire layout, scanning for magic items. They were given hints that the derro were headed to town (lots of evidence of last-minute fleeing, hints that an exit in the direction of town was recently used, and so on), but they didn't get the best result on their skill checks and I couldn't really hit them over the head with it.
We did random rolls for a few NPCs to die defending the town in the raid, and poor Father Zantus got his number rolled on a chart of about 60 major NPCs. That was a bummer but it made sense. Of course he'd be the good guy running out to save people, and get caught in the fray.
I think Koya Mvashti (also a cleric of Desna) will take over his position. So first question is, does that sound reasonable to you guys? I was thinking about fleshing out all the other clerics at the mega-church. Has anyone done that already?
When the gang got back to town, and saw the destruction and bodies everywhere, the Zed character ran up to the derro corpses and looted them until a citizen stopped him. Another player went around town saying, "Wow, who could have provoked this? We were busy doing other things. Surely we will help the townsfolk to get revenge!" Unfortunately that character has like a -5 to bluff, and ended up with a total of 8 to bluff checks. I don't know what the fallout of that is, but I did roll and a bunch of citizens saw right through it. How would you handle that?
Before much of that could be resolved, the gang left for Magnimar and took over the Foxglove townhouse. However, it was WEIRD. I used this battlemap for the encounter:
...and I liberally sprinkled citizen NPCs near the surrounding houses. Yet the players just opened the front door of the townhouse and started killing the dudes inside. One of them, the fake Iesha, ran outside calling for the guards. A nearby citizen tried to give fake Iesha sanctuary in her home. The PCs ran out after Iesha, killed her in the street, and then our aggressive player, Zed, went after the citizens for giving Iesha sanctuary. I had the citizens lock themselves in their homes, but the PC ran up and began banging on the door, weapon in hand. I didn't know what to do with that. People were screaming; I eventually had some guards arrive. The citizens lived.
The PCs had to bluff like crazy to not be accused of a murderous rampage. It helped that fake Iesha and fake Foxglove turned back into faceless stalkers. (Right? When a faceless stalker dies, its face goes back to its natural blank state, yeah?) They ALSO had a Hat of Disguise, and one of the players assumed the form of Foxglove. They even had Foxglove's repaired noble's outfit. So that player claimed to be the person living there and claimed to have been attacked by the 2 faceless stalkers. The citizens would say otherwise, but damn, having Foxglove himself assert ownership really helped to bluff the guards.
So after searching the townhouse, they found the deed to Foxglove's haunted manor, but it appears that Foxglove's townhouse in Magnimar does not have a deed. They have forged one, and just a day after nearly killing the people next door, they have assumed ownership. The neighbors are FREAKED OUT.
First, is that right? Is it possible for them to forge a deed and assume ownership that quickly/easily? I called the game at that time, as I did not know the correct handling of this. So I am free to come back to the next game with different outcomes. I thought to myself, "If the bluff/story of the PCs is that Foxglove came home after a long absence to find 2 squatters in his house impersonating him, and if Foxglove had some thugs hired to deal with it, then that can make sense to the guards. However, if Foxglove then signs the deed over to the thugs he hired, wouldn't the town officials balk at that? It doesn't seem to make sense. Foxglove hired dudes to reclaim his home, and then immediately gave away his home. Weird?"
Second, does player Zed need an alignment change? What alignment is threatening to beat up or actually beating up multiple citizens but not actually killing them?
I thank you guys for the discussion, but I've decided that the rules are so bad that I'm going to house rule this. The house rule goes like this:
1. You can't try to stealth after taking a shot and being in the open. You're seen.
2. While being seen you can move behind cover, but it won't give you stealth and sneak attack. It gives you cover bonuses. That's it.
3. If you want to gain stealth, use the -20 to hide while sniping rule.
4. Waiting a turn and then hiding does not bypass the sniping rule. You are still plainly visible and thus are under rules #1 and #2.
In other words, you should never be able to hide while detected after an attack, unless you have Hide in Plain Sight or use sniping rules or maybe that Hellcat Stealth mentioned earlier. Without a way to get a chance to hide while being observed, it's just simply impossible. Waiting a round won't negate that.
It IS? So if you snipe in a round, you re-hide at -20. If instead you shoot in the open completely visible and wait until next turn to try hiding, it's at zero penalty? So being in cover and trying to hide is harder for stealth than being in the open & shooting?
I cannot wrap my head around that.
My player sent me this sequence, which he is hoping I will confirm works. However, to avoid the sniping penalty of -20 to stealth, he stands in the open and just doesn't snipe, then on the next turn re-hides with no sniping penalty because he didn't snipe. How is it possible that being blatantly obvious gets a player no penalty at all?
rogue player wrote:
tl;dr: my player has assembled what is essentially a poor man's version of Hide in Plain Sight with early access. Does it work? Why or why not?
Has there been a FAQ/errata/developer post which establishes whether someone retains their DEX bonus against foes of which they are not aware due to use of the stealth skill?
Here is a quote from the lead designer, Jason Bulmahn:
Creatures are denied their Dexterity bonus to AC "if they cannot react to a blow" (CR pg 179 under AC). It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow.
Pizza Lord wrote:
This would be the case even if you had an enemy directly in front of you and you readied a brace weapon against any charging foes and that foe in front of you charged directly away from you at your ally across the room.
But how is that "receiving the charge?" You are not on the receiving end. They're going away, charging someone else. That someone else is the receiver. I'm stuck on this rule text:
Readying a Weapon against a Charge: "You can ready weapons with the brace feature, setting them to receive charges."
You see a guy barreling down on you. Your friend, 10' away, draws a sword and readies to hit the bad guy. Seeing this, you pull out a reach weapon with the brace property. Maybe you also have a special ability that gives you extra reach, like that longarm spell or ability. Then you ready with the brace weapon, if the bad guy charges.
Well, the bad guy does charge, and runs right up to... your ally. You have enough reach that you can get an AOO. But, does your readied action trigger? Do you get brace damage? Technically the bad guy IS charging. But technically he's not charging at YOU. I know the rules do not explicitly say "the enemy must charge you" but they do talk about "receive the charge" as if it's something coming in at you that you take in and/or handle.
What do you think is RAW, and what is RAI?
I have to alter the module to keep it entertaining for some players who have played through it once before. I was thinking that Justice Ironbriar has a big problem -- he isn't well-known to the players, and the GMs here in the forums have struggled with ways to introduce him -- and that problem is my savior. Because he isn't well-introduced, he's essentially expendable or replaceable.
So, I've decided that the real villains behind the murders will be the Scarnetti family. The module sets it up, anyway -- Banny stole from them, the villain's business in Magnimar is another saw mill, etc. It's easy to pop in the Scarnettis and have it make sense.
I will keep the cult and keep Foxglove, it's just that Titus Scarnetti is pulling the strings instead of Ironbriar. When the PCs are supposed to fight Ironbriar, they'll instead fight the Scarnetti family's "enforcer," Jubrayl. I might keep the Ironbriar stat block and rename it, or I might come up with a more rogue/thug Jubrayl stat block.
When they get to the end, they'll either fight Titus in snake form (using the normal monster stat block that the module provides) or if that throws off too many things (like I'd have to rewrite the letter from the sister) I'll keep the original monster and just have her casting Charm Monster on Titus instead of Ironbriar.
So basically, small easy changes and not much to alter in the handouts or stat blocks, and yet it makes sense. It might even make more sense than Ironbriar, who the players don't even know.
My question for you guys: how badly am I screwing up the module or later modules? What does this change ruin? What am I unaware of for the long term? Any tips of things I might need to change or watch out for?
Just... maybe as a nice bit of help for anyone still running this scenario... I'd like to go over the evidence. I could not for the life of me find the evidence bonuses. I even searched the PDF for the word "evidence" right there during the game. It just mentions that evidence gets bonuses, but never mentions WHAT. Then I saw in the listing for 1 of the council members that during the presentation of evidence, mentioning the connection to devils/demons would get a +4 to the diplomacy check with that 1 person. So I quickly scoured all the council member listings for the evidence bonuses and came up mostly empty! I was confused!
The PCs got 2 legit wins, but also had 2 big failures. Since I was certain that I was missing some details as I searched the section about convincing the council, I decided to turn 1 of the 2 failures into a success. I knew I was missing bonuses.
Turns out, the reason I missed it was because it was scattered in "Building the Case" boxes on pages 16, 20, and 22. So here are all the ways to influence the council, in one spot:
So... if you're playing at the high tier and have the normal DC, the PCs need to hit a 32. If they use the alternative method of persuasion for each NPC, the DC drops to 28. (4 player adjustment would drop this to a 25, if that's in effect.) If you have max bonuses, you'd have a +16 on top of your own personal skill check bonus (and against Vance in particular it'd be a +20, and against Belbi in particular it'd be a +14, or a +18 if you mentioned fiends).
In other words, with due diligence, your PCs probably only fail if they roll a 1, 2, or 3.
I'm glad I increased my teams successes to at least 3 out of 4 council members, because once I finally found all the bonuses, they would have definitely done it. They didn't get Shinri's journal or all the tablets in time, but the other bonuses were enough.
Now I'll print this and paperclip it to the page about the council. Happy gaming!
The rules for creating traps are in the Core Rulebook, so you can just build a trap at CR 8.
This CR 8 cave-in is from the Core Rulebook, but maybe since it's lumped under "traps & hazards" it's more hazard than trap.
Here's a CR 8 blade trap which is from Pathfinder #9. It's not Core Rulebook, but if you can use the Core Rulebook trap-building rules to re-create it, then it works.
At the end, my character refused to bow down to the dragon, and didn't know that the dragon had any illusion on it, and didn't want to screw it up for the rest of the group, so told the Dragon to screw off, and then lept into the eye of the effect. What happens when you leap into the eye of the effect? We're still playing the game, and we're going to need to figure out if I do a raise dead or a body recovery or anything...
Is my character alive, but somewhere else...?
The monster in question is a fleshdreg with the "wrath" variation.
So here's my question: what is officially an "energy" type? Can I have the fleshdreg deal positive energy damage? Negative energy? Sonic? Force?
Are there other energy types that are rare/unique? For example, is there a "wind" energy type? An eldritch energy? A psionic energy?
I know that fire can free someone from the Web spell. What about the Entangle spell? I have someone trapped in the Entangle spell, but that person is spamming Burning Hands to try to burn a path to freedom. They insist that if a 2nd level spell like Web can be burned through, then a 1st level spell like Entangle should be even easier. However, Entangle doesn't have any text about being burned away, whereas Web does.
What do you guys think?
In light of Sandpoint's "level 4 spellcasting" issue, I've drafted this solution. (Contains Cyrdak's spell list.)
I've found one more way in which the PCs can acquire a 3rd level spell (and they may NEED it). There are some monsters in the game that cause disease, so I went looking for Remove Disease. I found it in Pathfinder Comics #1 which is freely available as a PDF at that link. Why does a comic relate? Because in it, there is the full stat block for Father Zantus (he was given terrible spell choices, by the way -- he looks like he's ready to go fight monsters, not peacefully lead the town's faithful). In his stat block is gear, and in that you'll find 2 copies of a Remove Disease scroll.
Of course, players can also use the town rules to get scrolls of higher levels. Scrolls of 3rd or 4th level have a 75% chance of existing somewhere in town. But it's nice to know that Zantus just automatically does have some scrolls, no check needed.
so you never have to walk anywhere again
Except that's not what he's doing, or not his goal. It's stated right there in the post we're responding to -- the player wants to craft items, but the crafting rules prohibit crafting during adventuring days. IF the player can find a way to journey with the group without doing any actions (including walking) then he/she can spend the days crafting items.
The character is the opposite of sloth; trying to accomplish two things at once (traveling with the group AND crafting magic items while they move). And the character is doing this only because of a limitation in the rules -- the player probably doesn't want to have the PC seem lazy, but the group needs gear & magic, and by the rules, this is a way to achieve that.
Let me put it this way. If I were attempting to be helpful for the party -- creating magic items that will be cheaper than full price, and definitely helpful if the group is in trouble -- and the GM awards me sloth points for it, I'm gonna nope out. That's punishing the player for trying to be helpful. It's a great way to get the player to say, "Oh, you know what? Nevermind. I didn't realize that helping the group was going to get me flagged with a negative mark. If I just don't be that helpful, it seems like my character comes out the other side with no negatives, even if it means the party is worse off or even TPKs. So yeah, let's just have me not do that helpful stuff."
Same idea goes for the first example too, sleeping during a midnight fight. The player clearly knows that if the wizard awakens for a fight, the sleep is considered ruined, and extra hours must be spent asleep. That's from this rule:
The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but he must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If his rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time he has to rest in order to clear his mind, and he must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing his spells.
And it gets worse, because if you cast spells during a midnight fight, then you cannot regain them in the morning -- those slots are just lost for the day. That's from this rule here:
When he prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells he has cast within the last 8 hours count against his daily limit.
So the wizard cannot wake up, and cannot cast spells to help. If he/she does, then either the wizard just doesn't have spells for the upcoming adventuring day, or the wizard has to delay the party by extra hours of rest. Of course the players at the table might tell him, "We'll wait for you to rest extra, please help us!" But if they don't or cannot give him extra hours of rest, he's gimped for the day. He might even be useless, if he's emptied his slots.
So the wizard is actually being diligent. He's trying to be sure that he can help the party during the adventuring day. If he gets up to help, he screws that up. Obviously, if the midnight fight goes terribly wrong, then the other PCs might scream for help, and he might have to give up his rest just to keep the party alive. However, that clearly didn't happen.
Wow, I wouldn't have awarded sloth for either of those first 2 examples. I would have awarded diligence or something like it. Zeal? I don't recall what the positive options are.
To get sloth, you have to be shirking responsibilities because "I don't wanna" or similar lazy, non-helpful reasoning. In both of your examples, the PC was trying to achieve something good and helpful to the group (spells for an adventuring day, and innovative magic that enables him to craft scrolls to help the group).
I really love your last example, though. That's pretty awesome. I'll have to remember that if my group gets that far along.
So in my game, I blew up the garrison during the goblin attack, killing most of the guards. This was my way of explaining why the PCs were doing a good portion of the fighting, and also why they'll be asked to step up and help out after the goblin raid.
Part of the summary from my game is this:
As you might guess, being in the middle of a goblin attack with people dying around you, and being the recipient of free healing, and then saying "pay me or I won't help anyone"... earns 1 greed point.
Hey guys, we are trying to infiltrate the keep, and we need to get some small animal creatures to move toward the keep, and then touch one of the bad guys in the keep. We want to scry them as they move in and touch the bad guy. There is a D&D 3.5 spell called chain of eyes, which allows you to touch one creature, scry that creature, and then as the creature touches other creatures you can jump to scrying those other creatures. I recall Pathfinder making an equivalent spell, but it isn't called chain of eyes, and now I can't find it. Can any of you help me?
So... the timetable here was so confusing, even with the wonderful PDF time-tracker from pfsprep.com, that I didn't know what to do and sorta just abandoned the time tracking entirely. Why? Because if I understand this correctly, there is no way to do this without losing. Venza, if you follow the timeline, must be dead no matter how fast the PCs act. Here:
This means, even if the players interview no one and instead magically know to immediately go recover Lofton, they will still return to town too late, at around 8 PM. At that point they get Eliza's sending message that Venza is kidnapped. And here's the trick: the kidnapping happens that day while the PCs are out getting Lofton, and it states this text: "He was tried rapidly, and fliers have been posted announcing his execution at sundown." Page 18.
Well, best case scenario is that they arrived in town an hour after sundown. Venza is dead. There is no rescue mission. He's dead.
Now, there is text about protecting Venza. IF the PCs gave Venza any advice about hiding or moved him to a safe location, then he's still caught but only gets killed the next day. My players made some goofy suggestions about pushing his desk against the door to hold off any enemies, but I didn't really deem that of any material help to Venza's predicament. Nonetheless, I had to give my players the benefit of this delay because otherwise it makes no sense.
I mean, why even bother to track time if the outcome is that Venza is dead anyway? If the module/scenario is forcing Venza to be dead, just do it. Say, "Don't bother to track time. Venza dies before the PCs can get back from their visit with the fey, UNLESS they helped Venza hide."
Apologies to PFS leadership if I was supposed to auto-fail the players and dock them some prestige points, but I just figured this MUST be a bug. It makes no sense. So I tried to do what the module author probably intended. Maybe?
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
I think your discovery is dead-on right. However, the follow-up to this scenario is 9-20, and it's up on Paizo now, and the overview text contradicts this:
Though the Gardeners promised Maldris that they would grant these individuals a fair trial and carry out any executions without the use of their infamous soul-trapping Final Blades...
So we're back to "Why bother going to Galt, again?"
Of course, it could be a typo or something. 9-20 doesn't release to the public for 3 weeks, so maybe they just had an editing problem and accidentally contradicted the logic of bringing the captives to Galt.
I suppose 9-20 could be fixed before it comes out. We'll see, very shortly.
Recently in a home game The GM's creature failed his save vs. blindness. Then right there on the spot the GM gave the creature the Blindfight feat. And it ended up killing my character before I even received another action.
I probably know who you're speaking of, but even if I'm wrong, I know plenty of GMs who do similar things. I have a friend right now who will tell you straight up that he hates it when the players can end fights quickly. He is fully invested in altering the game and the encounters to his favor. If this were just for making fights a little more surprising or challenging, I'd go with it. However, he's really bad at it. Characters die. Often. He feels this is good gaming.
Knowing this, I tend to make characters that are extremely cautious in his game world. They avoid all direct confrontation, as it's almost always a loss. He noticed this at one point, and started taunting me that I was playing a fighter who was a coward. I replied that I had 100 hit points and his monsters always hit and always did about 100 points of damage. Meaning, I can maybe survive 1 hit, and then I must retreat. So, that's what I did, every fight.
Finally, his taunting got to me, and so I asked him what HE would do, and he asserted that he'd stay and fight. Thinking he must have some great plan -- even if it's just GM fiat in my favor -- I decided to keep my character with 10 hit points in the fight. On the monsters' turn, they did about 100 hit points of damage, and my warpriest was super-super dead. Oh.
I sat out of the game for about 3 hours until my character could be raised from the dead, quite a bit poorer. The GM smiled at me and said, "See? Nothing even happened in that fight. You're fine. Why were you worried?"
My character died, and I lost a huge chunk of my wealth to come back. I sat out of the game for 3 hours. I'd say my worries were well-founded.
As you might guess, becoming poorer in that game meant I couldn't gear up effectively, and so the character died again, and I eventually retired him.
I think some GMs have forgotten that the stated plan for encounters in D&D 3.5 (and the unstated carry-over plan for Pathfinder) was that PCs could handle about 5 fights in a normal adventuring day, and only 1 was supposed to be very difficult (another 2 or 3 should be average fights, and 1 should be easy). That's on page 49 of the 3.5 DMG. It didn't get copied over to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, but what did carry over is the idea of it. We can all see it in most Pathfinder Society products, which usually offer 3 to 6 encounters in an adventuring day, one of which is a boss fight, and one of which is easy.
For some GMs, an easy fight is antithetical to a good game. All fights must leave the PCs barely alive, or the game isn't viable. I'm really grateful that Pathfinder Society has mostly done away with that thinking.
I mentioned this in another thread, but it would be nice if something from a 3rd party book was sanctioned, even if it was just 1 class from Paths of War or something like that. It might rekindle some interest from veteran players who have "tried everything" over the last 10 years, and it might sell off some product before version 2 comes out.
I'd really like the ability to try anything new that Pathfinder Society hasn't done (or hasn't allowed).
And if it isn't perfect, it doesn't matter much -- it's just 1 season and then it's dead. Start over. It's a good chance to try something interesting with no long-term repercussions.
I cast Raise Dead, because I wanted to add to this discussion.
I think a great idea for the final season would be to sanction something from the 3rd party books. Maybe something from Paths of War? I don't know what, but you have a lot of veteran players who have tried every class over the last 10 years, and they'd pour back in for a last chance to try something new. Also, it would sell some of the backlog product they have before PF2. So it'd help Paizo to make some sales, it'd make the players happy, it'd only be for 1 season so if anything was too wacky it'd be closed out before it mattered.
You know? This is their last moment to try something with PF1. They have 1 season. I hope they do something exciting, something we haven't seen or done yet.
Maybe this was part of the site redesign, or maybe this was me pressing a wrong setting button. Whatever the case, I hate it. The problem: when I go to a product page, it no longer shows the reviews by default. It shows the product discussion forum posts. I have to click the button/tab for reviews in order to see them. This is annoying -- I'm trying to buy product, but these extra steps make it seem like Paizo has no faith in their products and are trying to hide the reviews.
How do I fix this, if it even was my own doing? Is this actually part of the redesign?
There is no mechanical effect tied to the water, so there is nothing going on with the water.
Having said that, there is a VERY easy mechanic you could house-rule for it. In the real world, stagnant water that is "frothing" is usually filled with bacteria. Drinking it should be like asking to have Montezuma's Revenge, or a similar illness. And in D&D and Pathfinder, there is exactly a disease for this kind of real-world illness: Filth Fever.
Cool! An easy question. I got this, guys.
They do this a LOT. In most of the modules of the later seasons, you'll find that they use the "specific trumps general" rule a ton. So they take a generic bad guy stat block -- say, a wyvern, or the battle mage. They put the full generic stat block in the back of the product. Then they add a list of modifications right on the page where the encounter occurs. Those specific modifications are the "specific trumps general" rule in action. The specific changes win.
So page 9 tells you the fight will be using the generic battle mage stat block, but doesn't list the whole thing there. Instead, it lists out the unique changed aspects of the battle mage. Then you turn to the back to get the other parts of the stat block that were unchanged.
That means not only do they have Slow, but according to the "During Combat" section, they use that & Web, right away.
In light of Sandpoint's "level 4 spellcasting" issue, I've drafted this solution. (Contains Cyrdak's spell list.)
Here is a link to a conversation about the level 4 spellcasting issue. The basic gist is that the town-building rules state that Sandpoint should have spells available up to 4th level, yet the best spellcaster statted out for the town only has level 2 spells. For me, I've decided to stick with the specific implementation of Sandpoint as-is, disregarding the generic town-building rules. (So, no 4th level spells. My PCs will have to deal with a town that has level 2 spells at best.) This is partly for the same reason that James Jacobs gives: if there are spellcasters in town that can cast level 4 spells, they mostly don't need the PCs to save them or help them. At least not at first.
However, I wanted to honor the idea that they should have higher level spells, even if the NPCs remain capped at level 2 spells. How to do this? Cyrdak Drokkus is a level 6 bard. He can only cast level 2 spells, max. However, many bard spells are also wizard spells, but the wizard has to cast them at a higher level. In other words, the bard has access to some higher level wizard/cleric spells. So I chose spells for him that complement his acting skills, while also being spells that are 3rd level for wizards/clerics/druids. Here is the full list:
Note that he has more spells than a normal bard because he's human (the human "favored class bonus" for bards is that he/she can take 1 extra spell known). So the list is a little bit bulked up, on purpose.
If there are any other NPCs with a class that gets early access to some spells, I'll probably find them and do the same thing for them.
Aren't Bruthazmus's hit points wrong? I'm not 100% certain, but check this out. Here is his normal stat block line:
HP 31 (3d8 + 1d10 + 13)
If we break that down, we get:
HP 31 (4.5 + 4.5 + 4.5 + 5.5 + 13)
Right? That's 19 + 13. That's 32. The only explanation I can imagine is that they added the racial hit dice and rounded down before adding the class hit dice. So like this:
HP 31 (13 + 5 + 13)
Is that how you're supposed to do it? I assumed all those .5s would add up. Am I wrong?
So... just to verify... the "Dance of Disaster" that the adhukait uses (which allows for a 10' move between each attack) still provokes AOO, right? I don't see anything in the listing which suggests that the 10' move is treated like a 5' step or something. So the creature can move a ton, but if it does, it may provoke a ton of attacks. Yeah?
They're going to sell PDFs of version 1 indefinitely. It'll always be supported in that sense. And Pathfinder Society is going to allow PF1 games to be run indefinitely too. Obviously, player enthusiasm for PF1 will diminish over time and it will get harder & harder to have PF1 games in Pathfinder Society, but it looks like it'll die out organically, as demand wanes.
As for the Paizo team watching for PF2 to flop and reverting back to PF1, that seems like a crazy way to cannibalize sales and stay mired in the low-sales situation they have now with PF1 supplements. Sounds like a good way to kill a business, but what do I know?
If it were me making decisions, I'd probably just have a new system for PFS 2, but keep it similar. I'd let the old system sit alongside the new system. For example, I'd keep the stars in place, but as a symbol only for PFS 1. For PFS 2, maybe award medals instead. So a person who had GM'd a ton of games for PFS 2 might look like this when he/she posted:
There are a bunch of medal emojis (and star emojis -- don't really need to waste an actual graphic icon on this stuff), so it should be easy to pick something that blends in OK. Someone who had stars & medals would have both visible:
⭐⭐⭐ 🏅🏅 Username
I'd allow people to use either system for re-rolls, but not both. So if you have 4 stars in PFS 1, and you are playing in a PFS 2 game, you can still get a re-roll at +4. In this way, you could end up with someone who is both 5-star and 5-medal, and both contributions would be respected and shown.
Nick Wasko wrote:
dedicating a surprise attack to neutralizing a spellcaster seems rational
After just seeing your tricky full-round surprise attack disappear from the product, maybe this might be a consolation prize: if the hushed arrow attack works, it doesn't neutralize a spellcaster; it neutralizes all spellcasters nearby. The arrow is targeted to hit 1 person and that 1 person must fail the save, but if he/she fails it doesn't mean that person is silent -- it means the Silence spell is now emanating from them, like it or not, and it affects them and everyone within 20' of them. And none of the rest of the PCs get a saving throw, just as PCs don't get individual saving throws against Fog Cloud or similar emanation-like spells.
If the arrow works, it's just an environmental hazard that everyone must deal with.
(I suspect you the author know this, but mostly I'm mentioning this for the GMs. Lots of GMs get surprised by the Silence spell and feel it's "broken" for it to blanket an area without individual saves. cite, cite, cite)
We just lost the powerful opening salvo of the boss fight, so run that Silence effect by the books to get your full money's worth.
Nick Wasko wrote:
I imagine shield and the other "before combat" spells aren't already factored into the stat blocks
That's wrong, then. The "during combat" sections are not factored in because they rely on actions in initiative that may or may not happen. However, the "before combat" sections are always factored in, as they are supposed to happen before the PCs can interfere. If something from that section is not factored in, then it's not supposed to be in the before combat section.
In any case, Mage Armor is factored in, and it's from the before combat section. So why Mage Armor but not Shield? It could at least be consistent. I'm wondering if, after you passed the content off to the team, they decided to kill the Shield bonus but missed the before combat section...?
Nick Wasko wrote:
The sandals of quick reaction rules say, "When the wearer acts during a surprise round, he can take a standard and a move action during the surprise round." By my understanding of the combat rules, a full-attack action can be used in place of a standard action and a move action
Not according to the forums, at least, but I'm posting on the forums and I'm an idiot, so who can say how valid those forum discussions are. Here are two. This discussion and this one specifically dedicated to the sandals.
(Assuming you agree that the sandals don't do what you intended, the next question is: do we nerf the encounter and follow the rules, or do we invoke "specific trumps general" and suggest that your specific text trumps the general rules and allows for this amazing full-round-on-a-surprise-round attack? Importantly: did you balance the fight around this initial onslaught? If so, then we might want to try to preserve that, unless the design team says no.)