outshyn's page

Thank you all so much. So reviewing, I think I have this as a final summary:

• 1. happykj quoted the "Big Creatures and Cover" rule, which if I follow should mean that I have at least 1 square that is NOT under cover, and that I should treat that square as plainly visible, no stealth. This seems uncontested.
  
• 2. Multiple people have pointed out mechanical reasons why spiritsense functions differently than blindsight (for example, how spiritsense allows you to determine living vs. undead, something blindsight doesn't do), and because of this, they believe Dampen Presence will not stop spiritsense.
  
• 3. Melkiador thinks it does stop spiritsense -- with that logic lifesense & echolocation are also useless, as they too use the phrase "works like blindsight" or similar.
  

So, not sure if going with #2 or #3, but glad that #1 is uncontested. Thanks everyone!

I am having trouble following the layout of the question. Is this one question or multiple? You start with the PC on an island and they have a bow, then they're hovering over the creature and shooting down? But that's a melee attack?

It was 2 separate things. 1) They were on the island, shooting the bow into the water. They objected to my ruling about the water being murky and that causing problems with sighting and accuracy. So 2) they moved over the area where the enemy was last seen, and struck down into the water with a melee attack, saying THAT should solve all issues.

I said that in both cases, the murky water provided a targeting problem, as the creature was either unseen or difficult to see. This renewed their objection because of Freedom of Movement, supposedly allowing them to move freely in water should mean that they see freely in water too (???) or maybe it means that just... water limitations of any kind must be removed? I'm not 100% clear on the logic here, but I got objections that were stated forcefully enough to motivate me to come here and double-check.

For reference, here is the battlemap:

https://imgur.com/a/TT9mrtL

The PC on the island is fully on land. The creature in the water is fully submerged, and the water is considered murky, and the distance is beyond what is noted for murky water under the aquatic terrain rules.

The PC has Freedom of Movement up and flight, and is a zen archer with a bow and 20' of reach if he does melee. He fires shots into the water. He should miss because he's beyond sight due to murky water, right? Or he fires at squares and has 50% miss chance, right? He has a zen archer power called trick shot which should allow him to ignore concealment or cover, but how many points would he need to spend? I told the group it was essentially as if the target was invisible, or they were blind. So I think 2 ki points would allow the archer to ignore the problem, right?

However, the PC also moved into melee, hovering at the surface of the water and striking 20' down with his reach, using no ki points. They said this would bypass the murky water issue because they have Freedom of Movement up. However, I said that the issue is sight being blocked, not movement in water. This went over like a ton of bricks. Does Freedom of Movement bypass the murky water issues?

For reference, here is the battlemap:

https://imgur.com/a/uTg6bmI

Basically, a huge size PC in a 5' wide hallway. This is not only squeezing, but also the move through tight spaces condition in Escape Artist skill. Movement should take a minute, IF the check is made.

However, the PC has Fluid Form up and running. This allows to move through tight spaces, seemingly at full speed.

However, IF a fight breaks out in that hallway, is the PC under squeezing rules? Not for movement, but for the AC & attack penalties?

For reference, this is the battlemap in question:

https://imgur.com/a/nRBI88f

Basically it's a huge size PC vs a medium sized chained spirit.

However, that PC has some special things about it. First they went invisible and stealthed to that location. They do not have hide in plain sight. But they do have Dampen Presence, which says that it ruins blindsight & blindsense.

The chained spirit has spiritsense, which works like blindsight but is not blindsight. My impression is that it... senses spirits.

The PC says these things:

• 1. Even if spiritsense ruins invisibility, she is behind cover (the column) and stealthed for a 40 on the check. So the stealth should save it from being seen.
  
• 2. Even if the stealth doesn't save it, Dampen Presence ruins blindsight, and since spiritsense is like blindsight, it's ruined too.
  

I'd love to know what an actual by-the-rules verdict might be here. My thought is "wow that column is small compared to your massive size, does it really let you hide?" And also, does Dampen Presence just ruin everything that works "like blindsight" including lifesense, spiritsense, etc?

Spell for reference:

Suffocation

The question is not about failing the saving throw. The question is what happens if you make the save. The spell says you are staggered for 1 round. However, since the spell lasts 3 rounds, on the next round, you have to save again, right? If you keep saving, the spell essentially has you in a "stagger lock" where the best outcome is you are staggered for 3 rounds.

Basically, the spell is a guaranteed 3 rounds of stagger, right?

I've always allowed my players to use CMB as a martial threat assessment, using DCs exactly as you would with Knowledge checks. I think that's 10 + CR, off the top of my head.

However, knowledge checks generally don't tell you about class levels; only the base creature. With my martial checks, I allow some class/level info. This is hazy, as I've never formalized it, but if they miss the DC but are within 5, I give some rudimentary info ("you can probably take 'em"). If they meet the DC, I give an idea of power level via the CR system. No details on class levels, just... how easy is it to beat 'em down ("you'd guess this is a CR 5 to 7 encounter"). If they exceed by 5+ I give them a lot of info ("this enemy has either monk or brawler levels, you're pretty sure, and he looks waaaaayyy beyond your team's abilities"). If they beat it by 10+ I even just say class & level, though still maybe hazy a bit (such as, "the guard has 2 or 3 levels of warrior, in your professional opinion").

Anyway, that's imperfect but it's what I allow.

Someone earlier mentioned Profession (soldier) as a skill for this, and I'd not considered that, but I'd absolutely allow it. I'd allow Profession (guard) too and/or Profession (thug/bandit), if that's a thing.

I would note that this is pretty useless for spellcasting. If an enemy is powerful because he/she/it has 15 levels of wizard, well, you wouldn't know that from a CMB check. You might know "seems like a spellcaster type, not much martial power" and that might ward you off simply because "oh spellcaster" but you'd never know levels or relative magical power.

With classes that are part martial, part magic -- warpriest, cleric, magus -- I mostly ignore the spellcasting aspects and just focus on pure martial prowess.

outshyn wrote:

So not wanting all that effort to go to waste, here are the giant character sheets, both in PDF and POR (Hero Lab).

• Doach PDF - Doach Hero Lab
  
• Drogart PDF - Drogart Hero Lab
  
• Halvara PDF - Halvara Hero Lab
  
• Oriandian PDF - Oriandian Hero Lab
  
• Papa Beshk PDF - Papa Beshk Hero Lab
  
• Vlorian PDF

anyone got a backup or update for these? they all lead to dead links.

CHEMISTSP private messaged me to tell me that you guys were asking for this stuff. Sorry the files went down; I lost my job, couldn't keep paying for the server. However, I think Google can probably host for a bit. Right? I think their links last a year or so. So here they are:

All giants in a zip file.

Please note, this zip file contains 2 of the giants (Doach & Drogart) in both original form and modified form. The modified form was for a different game and probably shouldn't be used. You want the original files if you're running this for Runelords. However, I'll include all of it and you can pick & choose. Have fun!

for reference: dread wraith, shell of succor.

The shell says, "If an attack deals fewer points of damage than the target’s temporary hit points from this shell of succor ability, it still reduces those temporary hit points but otherwise counts as a miss for the purpose of abilities that trigger on a hit or a miss."

The dread wraith has a touch attack that does 3d8 negative energy damage and 1d8 con drain. If I hit a PC and do 10 points of negative energy damage, but the PC has a shell of succor with 11 points of protection remaining, will the shell stop the con drain?

(It's very clear to me that when an enemy has a bite attack with poison that the bite needs to work in order for the poison to be administered. In such a case, obviously shell of succor applies. However, with the dread wraith, the way it's worded I cannot quite tell. Is it "when negative energy damages a target then the 1d8 con drain happens" or is it "this attack has some negative energy damage, and also separately it has some con drain.")

Similarly, if someone has Death Ward up, it would clearly block the negative energy damage, but would that then cause the 1d8 con drain to also fail? Death Ward has nothing that would normally stop con drain, but if "you never got the energy damage through" stops the con drain, then it should apply here too. Yes?

Everyone, THANK YOU.

I have a funny story. I haven't looked at my Kingmaker folder for a couple of weeks, and today had time to come here and just read up a little bit. And there was this cool post about "one good piece of advice" and I thought to myself, "Hey, that's right up my alley! I'll read that first!"

Imagine my surprise to find that I started this post and then forgot, and then was delighted to see that I had done this.

So anyway, very much appreciated. I'm looking at Venture Capital and the old timey map and everything Dudemeister now. Thank you all!

I'm the GM.

I know the big issue -- be sure to foreshadow the final boss more, because she sorta comes out of nowhere otherwise. However, are there other tips that you might say are essential? I don't need every little fix, but just the top 2 or 3 you deem most essential.

For what it's worth, I'm running the PF1 adventure path (6 modules) that came out right before the PF2 revision. So I don't have any of the PF2 revisions, and don't really have an interest in them, unless you all agree there was some epic awesome encounter or modification that everyone absolutely should follow. I mostly just want to run the PF1 books as-is but avoiding obvious pitfalls like the final boss issue.

Thanks for any tips!

For reference:

https://aonprd.com/MagicWondrousDisplay.aspx?FinalName=Assisting%20Gloves

The issue with these gloves: it says it uses a command word to activate, which is by default a standard action. However, it then says it's a swift to get the benefit (Aid Another bonus).

My question is: is the text about it being a swift action meant to modify the usual activation? So it's only a swift action and the gloves then give an Aid Another check and become inert. OR, is it meant to be that you use a standard action to turn 'em on, then they hover around you for up to 1 minute, waiting for a swift action to make 'em do something?

I think the latter interpretation is correct and intended, but also makes the gloves borderline useless in combat. If you're in the middle of a standard action to swing at an enemy, you don't have another standard action available in order to activate the gloves for a +2.

What do you think?

I would just create a "Better Blindsight" feat that extends existing Blindsight by 10 feet more, and give it a prereq of "Blindsight and 10+ HD" so that only tougher monsters who already have Blindsight can take it. I might make a note that you can only take the feat once, so that monsters aren't taking it 10x to get absurd Blindsight ranges. Then I'd drop one of the Hive Queen's feats and put that in its place.

I would say yes as well, for a reason not mentioned yet. That is, the old PF1 "Hero Lab" allows this, AND it was vetted in the forums there. They allowed it, someone called them on it, and they checked with Paizo and kept it as-is.

That's not confirmation of anything, since it's all unofficial people having unofficial conversations, but it was enough for me to shrug and allow it in my games. YMMV.

I always thought you had to start your turn already in stealth, in order to get a sneak attack. However, I just had a player in the open on his turn then move behind a wall, use the cover to get stealth, and then hurl an acid flask over the wall at an enemy. He wanted sneak damage. I thought no, it won't work for 2 reasons: didn't start the turn already in stealth, AND can't do sneak damage with a splash weapon (unless you take a feat or have a power or something).

Am I wrong about that stuff?

Can someone have Phantom Steed do double moves, since the steed has no constitution, it can't be exhausted from running all day.

Spell for reference: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/phantom-steed/

Oh, posted in wrong forum. Thanks!

Can someone have Phantom Steed do double moves, since the steed has no constitution, it can't be exhausted from running all day.

Thank you both! I'm very interested in making it a race, as running the Brotherhood NPCs as allies is a lackluster proposition. And I might use the chained spirit for one thing in particular -- the PCs have a SOP that is super effective at rendering enemies useless. However, if I have the chained spirit take a more active role, it may be able to see their plan play out and then counter it in later battles, or at least alert other NPCs before the PCs arrive and do their usual plan.

Much appreciated.

I have some players who are joining the campaign but they played the module years ago. I'm OK with that but I want to keep them guessing. What changes can I make to Scarwall that are absolutely fun & surprising?

I'd be open to simple things like, "Change that troll so it needs sonic damage to turn off its regeneration." But I'm also open to complicated things like revising the story behind the monsters or even revising encounters entirely. What have you all done? What do you suggest? Any ideas appreciated.

Thanks Bjorn. Also, can anyone talk about 5 foot steps interacting with Dim Door? It's classified as "not an action." So could I start my turn by using Dim Door to a location, then see I'm in danger, and 5 foot step away from the bad thing?

So let's say I 5 foot step up to a target and start a full attack sequence. HOWEVER, the enemy has a feat/power that lets him tumble/move 5 feet away, even though it's not his turn. Because I did a 5 foot step, am I stuck with the gap? OR, can I say, well the 5 foot converts to move action.

Note: I'm aware that you cannot 5 foot step AND do a move action. But can it be one single move action, of 10 feet total? My question is, can I close that gap on my turn, if the first 5 feet has circumstances suddenly change?

I'm aware you can convert a full attack action to simply a standard + move, if something happens after the first attack to make the rest useless. So if you kill your target on attack #1, you don't have to take attack #2 & #3 on the corpse; you can leave the first attack as a standard action and then give up the full attack action, and move to your next target.

Does something like that exist when someone foils your 5 feet of movement? Can you keep going and have it be a move action? That of course would mean that you'd get AOOs. But if I'm fine with that?

I cast Dimension Door, and it says "you can’t take any other actions until your next turn."

The bad guy gets a turn, runs past my threatened area. I have a sword, I want to AOO. I can't because Dim Door say "no actions" until my turn comes back up. However, I've seen some say "AOO is no action at all, like a 5 foot step" but I've not seen that in the rules. I would assume it's a free action or a special attack action that doesn't need an immediate action to use it. But what do you all think? And is there rule text one way or the other?

Stat block here:

d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/dragons/dragon/primal-umbral/umbral- dragon-mature-adult/

Question: while the "negative energy" breath weapon is obviously negative energy, is the "shadow breath" weapon ALSO negative energy? I ask for 2 reasons:

1. Other monsters that do strength drain, such as the shadow itself, note that the strength drain "is a negative energy effect." Since the umbral dragon lacks that text, do I assume it's not?
2. I need to know if Death Ward shuts down both breath weapons, or just 1.

The spell in question:

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/command-undead/

Note: that is the 2nd/3rd level spell, not the more powerful 7th level spell. We're dealing with the wimpy command spell here.

So here is the issue: the players have control of the undead, it is mindless, so the rules say it will even obey suicidal commands. HOWEVER, it also says this: "Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the commanded undead (regardless of its Intelligence) breaks the spell."

So is saying "Bite yourself" an act that threatens the commanded undead, in which case the spell is broken? Or is the rule about it mindlessly doing suicidal actions in effect? Which wins? It seems a bit like a race condition where each rule supercedes the other, repeatedly, forever. But what do you all think?

At 3rd level the Shadow Dancer can summon a shadow that can serve as his companion. Some text from the rules for this:

If a shadow companion is destroyed, or the shadowdancer chooses to dismiss it, the shadowdancer must attempt a DC 15 Fortitude save. If the saving throw fails, the shadowdancer gains one permanent negative level. A successful saving throw avoids this negative level. A destroyed or dismissed shadow companion cannot be replaced for 30 days.

So, if the shadow falls victim to the Dismissal spell, what happens? The shadow dancer didn't "choose" to dismiss it, so I guess the penalty outlined doesn't apply, AND the shadow isn't destroyed. Does anything happen? Will the shadow be able to return if the shadow dancer wants it? Will there be a 30 day wait?

How have you guys run this?

Is the alchemist's fire (or a flask of acid, for that matter) "weapon like" enough to qualify for the magic enhancement bonus? And if you think it is, then there is a follow-up question: does the +1 to damage apply only to the main hit, or also to the splash damage?

I understand that this is hugely wasteful, that nobody would bother to spend a Magic Weapon spell on a single thrown flask. But IF I wanted to waste the spell this way, does it work? And is there anything in the rules to prove that it works?

I have a player who wants to take Gorum's divine fighting technique, as described about halfway down the page here:

https://www.aonprd.com/DeityDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Gorum

...and give it to Ragathiel, the god described here:

https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Ragathiel

I agree they are both very "fighty" gods, so in that sense it works. However, that Gorum power is for chaotic creatures using a greatsword. The player will be playing a lawful fighter using a bastard sword.

Especially after seeing in Ragathiel's description that his "agents" use divine fire, they seem more like Sarenrae style dudes than Gorum style dudes.

If your player asked to get Gorum's power transferred over to Ragathiel, would you do it? And if no, would you just stop there, or would you home brew some other divine fighting technique (since Ragathiel doesn't have one yet). What would that divine fighting technique look like? What power is cool, but still realistic for Ragathiel and lawful fighters?

Link to spell, for reference.

So Caustic Blood not only deals acid damage to anyone who attacks you, but it has ongoing damage: for 1 round after, it deals half damage again, complete with a 2nd saving throw to negate it.

So the question: I have a high-level barbarian who just wants to "soak" the damage. The barbarian, not knowing that there will be extra damage on round 2, spends round 1 in full attack on me. He eats 3 Caustic Blood sprays. He lives. HOWEVER, on round 2 he's only going to survive if the residual effect is a one-time group thing. If he has 3 effects (one from each hit), he ded.

What do you think? And do you know of any relevant rules that would make going one way or the other "official"?

Player intends to have Magical Lineage to reduce metamagic penalty. Throughout her career the spell selected for this reduction will change. I note that traits cannot be retrained and the trait itself doesn't have text that allows for it to be revised to work with a new spell.

It's a once-you-pick-it-you're-stuck-with-it sort of thing.

Player says, "But I'm not retraining a trait. I got Magical Lineage via the Additional Traits feat, so I'm retraining that feat using the normal rules for retraining feats." During retraining, her idea is to drop the feat, then repick the same feat with the same traits but with a different spell selected for Magical Lineage.

Seems to me that it's... by the rules at that point. Am I wrong? Is there something I'm missing?

If you have a spell that will knock over an enemy (or cause it to fall), can you combine it with Staggering Fall to make their tumble very mean?

Here's why I wonder: does the timing work? Any spell effect happens at the END of casting, right? If so you'll cast MM, be done casting as the missiles hit their targets, then you swift/immediate cast Staggering Fall as the target is going down and there is no issue with this combination.

However, if targets are getting hit and falling mid-cast then you can't add on Staggering Fall, because you'd be casting that spell in the middle of casting MM itself.

I feel like this is an edge case where we won't have any rules text itself, but I bet someone here can get us real close to what the official intended ruling should be.

I'd love to hear it.

you only roll to maintain the grapple starting on round 2.

OK. Since multiple people are saying this, let's add some context.

With Greater Grapple, making a grapple check is a move action only once you grapple a creature.

So if you take a standard action to grapple a foe, and still have a move action in the round because you haven't moved or taken out a potion or opened a door or something like that, you can indeed make an attempt to pin the foe as that move action.

Greater Grapple turns maintaining into a move action -- a normal not-special move action, like any other move action that can be combined with a standard action in a single round. There is no text in Greater Grapple that qualifies the move action as somehow special and unable to be combined with the standard action that initiates the grapple.

I understand why people here might insist that maintaining as a move action can only be done on round 2 -- because then if the rule about "you get 2 tries to maintain and only 1 has to succeed" comes into play, you can easily apply the rule while avoiding the edge case that I'm in. However, nothing in the rules allows us to avoid the edge case. So I'm embracing the edge case -- the "2 tries to maintain and if either one works then the grapple is maintained" is now being applied in round 1 where there weren't 2 tries to maintain. There was 1 check to initiate the grapple, and then 1 maintain.

Because there were not 2 move-action maintain checks on round 1, I put forward that the single maintain action that failed results in failure, and the grapple is lost. Greater Grapple's "you get 2 tries to maintain and only 1 has to succeed" never kicks in, because there never were 2 maintain attempts.

Having said that, I also believe in getting the temperature of the room and understanding what is happening in the community. And it's clear that the community does not differentiate between the normal standard action to start a grapple and the move action to maintain that was granted by Greater Grapple. Because the community doesn't distinguish between these 2 things, I won't either. If a player initiates with a standard and wins, but then maintains with a move and fails, the net result is that the target/victim is still grappled, but whatever was going to happen with the maintain action (such as damaging the target) doesn't happen.

Thank you all for the advice. Much appreciated.

I agree that you don't need to maintain in round 1. The question is: the player chooses to maintain in round 1, so can this fail? Or is the GG rule about "only 1 of the 2 attempts needs to succeed" going to cover up a failure in round 1?

Greater Grapple says this:

Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action. This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks. You only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple.

The bolded parts are the parts I have questions about.

So first, the lead sentence implies that this kicks in only after the creature is already grappled. This seems to mean that the initial attempt is still done as a standard action. It is only the maintain attempts that are move actions. Correct so far?

The problem comes with the last sentence, suggesting that success at either check in a round will maintain. Because what if one of the checks was the initial attempt, not to maintain but just to start the grapple?

In other words, a creature with Greater Grapple does a 5' step toward a target, does the initial grapple attempt as a standard action and succeeds, and then uses a move action to maintain but fails. At this point, Greater Grapple is invoked, because success at one of two attempts means the creature remains grappled.

(My issue, if it's not obvious, is that the cool "maintain as a move action" grapple checks are only happening once during the initial round. So if you fail to maintain in the initial round, you cannot do a 2nd maintain attempt in order to cover up the failure and keep the grapple. I would say that the grapple ends. However, what if a player focuses on the line "This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round" and couples that with "You only need to succeed at one of these checks" to argue that even on the initial round, failing to maintain will not release the grapple, because the initial set up roll also counts and therefore the grapple is maintained. Basically, I need to know if "one of two rolls" means 1 of any 2 grapple rolls, or if it means 1 of the 2 special move-action attempts.)

Yes! Muhahaha!

So the lich had a big revision, because I had a big realization.

Here's the realization: the module nerfs the lich, even though it's the standard lich. Here's how: the standard D&D 3.5 lich's best spell is Circle of Death, but it only kills those with 8 HD or lower. Since the fight is intended for level 9 characters, the module expects that the lich's Circle of Death is completely useless. At least, that's pretty clearly how it worked back in the days when this module was written.

Knowing this, I decided to do a few things. First, I used the Pathfinder stat block (because it's a Pathfinder game, and we've been using PF stat blocks all the way through) and got rid of Circle of Death, because while it could work on these PCs (they're level 8), the module author clearly didn't expect that to happen. I put Flesh Wall in its place -- weaker spell, but thematic, plus it's necromancy, and good battlefield control.

I gave the lich an unfettered shirt so that it wouldn't be ruined by the monk grapples. To give it this item, I had to remove some of the other magic items, but it also means my players would get that cool anti-grapple shirt if they could beat the lich.

I also swapped the maximized Fireball for quickened Magic Missile -- a bad trade, but the 3.5 lich doesn't have a maximized Fireball, and I wanted the ability to get 2 spells off each round, for more rounds. To compensate for this loss, I gave the lich max HP + max False Life.

R1: Quickened MM, Globe of Invulnerability

R2: Trigger the unfettered shirt because yes he got grappled, then quickened MM

R3: Quickened MM + Cone of Cold

R4: ded

So I made some big miscalculations for this group. The Cone of Cold should have done great damage, but the rogue + monks all have Evasion and all saved. I should have known, but maybe it's for the best because the lich wouldn't have known. The Globe of Invulnerability is foolish because the main damage dealers are... the rogue and 2 monks. So the globe doesn't protect against them at all.

And the monks are literally exactly what is needed to bypass the lich's DR -- magic fists, bludgeoning, and used ki & haste to get a ridiculous number of attacks.

If the lich had survived to round 4, he would have Dimension Door'd away.

Between all the bad guys, I'd guess I probably only managed to deal about 150 points of damage -- enough to take down 2 of them, but the shaman was using quickened channel to do 12d6 healing in any round that needed it. My damage couldn't outpace her healing.

In the end, they fought a lich and won -- a lich that wasn't as mean as it could have been, but it was pretty close to what the module wanted, and I gave the lich a couple of advantages (such as the anti-monk shirt) so it seemed like it turned out OK.

Thank you all for the help!

I really need to thank everyone. The sheer number of ideas you've provided is amazing. I think I have a much better idea of what to do now and the game is going to be great! Thank you again.

taking a glace through the module it says something about going through the second level before that encounter.

Yeah, but they didn't.

That's the module author hoping they'd do something that seemed good in his head, even though he put no logical reason to do that in the game itself. Predictably, the PCs are doing what any adventuring group would do: clear the level they're on before hitting the lower dungeon levels; never leave monsters to come at your back when you head deeper into the dungeon.

The lich is just "unknown bad guy behind the next door" -- so the PCs have no indication that it would be wise to save the room for later.

I did try to scare them off, but it didn't take.

Having said that, it does seem like the verdict here is that I will TPK the party, indeed. So maybe I should just accept that it's a TPK, and what I might do is open with Circle of Death immediately, kill 2 or 3 PCs, and then have the lich laugh and let them run away.

If they run back to town they might do some town quests and get better equipped. That's definitely an option.

My players would probably strangle me if they went 15 encounters without leveling up

I'm not sure... what is the context for this comment? I feel like you're referring to my game, but that never happened in my game.

My group is right on target for XP/fights -- they just skipped a bunch of encounters.

The lich listed in the book also has much less optimal selections.

Well, yes, but that's also the stat block for a lich from D&D 3.5 -- back when wizards had a d4 for hit points and people got feats every third level instead of every other level, and so on. The module was just providing a CR 11 fight that matched for D&D 3.5 character power. This is pathfinder, so the Pathfinder CR 11 lich matches Pathfinder character power.

I could just use the 3.5 lich anyway, that's certainly a solution. I think before going that route, I'd try to stick with the Pathfinder stat block and just modify it, maybe remove the save-or-die spells, like Circle of Death?

What spell is on the Unhallow?

No spell is on the Unhallow -- it was put in place hundreds of years ago, so that spell ran out. Only the other effects are in place.

is there reason for them to expect a lich may be waiting for them?

Absolutely no reason. There isn't any hint of a lich. I have tried to hint that they shouldn't go there -- the "doorkeeper" to the lich was a bodak that they barely defeated, and the bodak was muttering about keeping them away. So I'm trying to scare them off, but it didn't work.

That area is for level 9s, so they got to it 1 level before the module expects.

In Trouble At Durbenford, there is a fight in an area under an Unhallow effect, with the following monsters: 24 skeletons, 1 ghost, and 1 lich. I'm using standard Pathfinder v1 stat blocks for them, but I'm OK to change them. In fact I think I need to.

The players are all level 8, and they will be fresh for this fight (well rested, full spells, and so on). They are: tetori monk, drunken monk, shadowdancer rogue with a shadow companion, shaman with life link, quickened channel energy, and so on with a cassissian angel familiar, and an arcane bloodline sorcerer with a faerie dragon familiar.

I linked to most stat blocks or class rules so you could reference it, but I left out a link to the skeletons because I assume they're irrelevant at this level. The sorcerer will Fireball them as an opener, and kill every single one. So this is a fight against a ghost and a lich.

My problem: this lich will kill 'em, right? The lich can open with the maximized Fireball, and that's 60 points of damage against PCs that have about 40-50 HP (for the sorcerer and shaman and familiars). At that point, the fight is just 2 monks and a rogue against a lich and a ghost. The tetori monk can grapple & pin in a single round, so that seems amazing. The rogue can then stab over & over again until the lich dies. If that ends the fight, great, but also anti-climactic. I assume the lich will Dim Door away (if he passes the concentration check) and then come back with Circle of Death -- which likely kills at least 1 of them. At that point, it's maybe 2 level 8 PCs vs. a lich and ghost.

I have to admit, without even playtesting this, I assume this is a TPK. Do you agree? Am I accurate?

If so, what can change? I was thinking about ways to make the fight seem scary & unwinnable without killing them instantly, thus giving them a chance to run away, or else maybe changing spells to make the fight seem damn hard & scary but while avoiding high-damage save-or-die stuff, so they at least have a chance to win.

What do you guys think? How would you tweak this? Does it even need tweaking?

Thanks everyone. We actually found a solution that wasn't any of the suggestions here. The reason I wanted the spell was to get around the time involved in putting on armor -- if we sleep in armor, we are fatigued in the morning, but if we don't sleep in armor, we get ambushed and die because it takes 10-40 rounds to put on armor mid-combat. Using Keep Watch to have someone stand fully armored all night was my ideal solution to the problem.

Instead, we swapped the wand to Serren's Swift Girding. Now I can get the tank into full AC with a sweep of the wand, no problem. Everyone sleeps without armor and is fully rested by morning with no fatigue imposed. If we are ambushed, the tank can tank while the rest of us do ranged support.

Thank you for the discussion of the issue! I guess I'll be more careful reading the rules about this stuff in the future.

I have the Keep Watch spell on a wand. My GM has laughed at this and said the money was wasted. This is because of this line in the spell:

Target one creature touched/2 levels

His argument: if you are 1st level, this 1st level spell is useless, as you need to have TWO caster levels before this will target even one creature.

I assumed minimum one target, otherwise the spell is indeed useless, a "trap" spell that wastes your money.

Is that true? If so, anyone with a normally-priced scroll, potion, or wand of this spell is outta luck. Correct?

My first edition bard archaeologist is going to do a lot of diplomacy checks in an upcoming game, and I'm trying to figure out how my luck powers can affect it. The reason I ask is because the diplomacy skill says you must talk for at least one minute (10 rounds) before you can make a check. So the big question: does the archaeologist's luck power trigger on the roll, burning 1 use? Or do I need to expend many uses, so that luck is on constantly during the entire 10 rounds?

Here's a link to the archaeologist, for reference.

Is your thinking that because they're immune to spells & spell-like effects, that maybe Slow should also be something they're immune to, even though it's a Supernatural effect in this case? So, nothing to do with monsters being immune to their own attacks, instead it's just that their immunity to magic might be extended to shut down Supernatural effects?

Or were you thinking something else, some other reason? Thanks for the tips/advice.

Let's say I have 5 stone golems, all crowded around the party tank. These golems badly want to slow the tank, because he's high level and getting TONS of attacks per round. So the golems all turn on their supernatural slow effect. The hero/tank character must make a DC 17 will save now. That's low & easy for a high-level dude, but with 5 saves to make, we're pulling for the hero to roll a natural 1, maybe.

But what about the stone golems themselves? Do they each make 4 saving throws (1 per each of the other 4 golems)? Do they each make 5 saving throws (versus the other golems AND vs. their OWN effect)? Or do they make no saves as if they are immune to the slow effect of golems?

Any advice much appreciated!

My players have already done the low-level imp vs. PC fights in 2 other adventure paths. They are sick of imps. I suspect that if I throw yet another imp at them from the Dragon's Demand module, I will end up with a table full of players groaning and saying, "We leave."

So, I need to find a substitute monster that is about the same difficulty, and fits in with the story about the imp (that is, it was a familiar that went crazy after the death of its master). The imp in this module tries to convince the PCs to take some damage from a blood-sucking device in exchange for info about the dungeon. So it would be nice if the substitute monster could have the same motivation (so at least it needs to be "roughly" intelligent and able to speak Common).

What do you guys think? Can you give me any pointers to a good/fun alternative to the imp?

To answer my own question, after going out to research this, I found 3 things that seem to be relevant and/or apply.

1. Rules on how Acid Arrow's ongoing damage stacks or does not stack

2. SKR stating that multiple ongoing fire attacks stack

3. The stacking rules themselves. This is adjacent to my question, not spot-on, because it's talking about bonuses & penalties, rather than healing & damage. But it's useful to get an idea. The stacking rules say: "Most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack."

So, based upon penalties stacking, Acid Arrow's ongoing damage stacking, and alchemist's fire stacking its ongoing damage too, it appears that a shining child can stack its ongoing burn damage too.

Perhaps this helps anyone else looking to make a DM ruling on this.

Burning Touch states:

A shining child corrupts the positive energy within a living creature into an unnatural burning light. For the next 5 rounds after a successful touch attack by a shining child, the target takes 2d6 points of fire damage.

The problems I'm trying to resolve are twofold. First, since the shining child can do two such attacks per round, does that mean that it stacks with itself, assuming both hits land? So if one shining child hits a PC twice, the PC now has 4d6 damage per round?

Second question, similar to the first: what if two shining childs attack? Lets say each one hits once, and misses once. So after they attack, the PC has been hit once from shining child #1, and once from shining child #2. Do those stack? Different creatures, same attack?

(A certain module by Paizo has 2 shining childs ganging up on a PC, and I need to know if that 2d6 ongoing damage is rolled into 4d6 ongoing, or if the damage stays stuck at 2d6 but the duration extends similar to how poisons do, or any other weird thing.)

Thank you rule lawyers for your service!