outshyn's page

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!

Am I missing something, or is there not really any lead to encourage the PCs to go back to Sandpoint after defeating Mokmurian?

The PCs in my game were married to people in Sandpoint, by this point in the campaign. Or they had lovers in town. And they were pretty greedy and loved returning to the Rusty Dragon for the free food & rooms. Also, one of the characters had retired to help restore/run the Glassworks. So I imagine they would have come back anyway. Having said that, I took the rumors/research that is offered on page 233 and 248, and freely gave out that info when they went into the library to research Xin-Shalast and the Runeforge. This helped them to see that the Runeforge was important, and from the handout that you mentioned, they knew that someone in Sandpoint had a key to it.

Based upon the advice on page 232, I also allowed them to research "the traitor Xaliasa" from the handout. The ancient library with it's clockwork librarian wouldn't have any info on Xaliasa turning into the Scribbler, as that's new information. However, we know from module/book 5 that he was a powerful general in the old runelords' armies. So, not a big stretch to at least have the names of some generals and where they served. Of course, when they served, the entire area was landlocked. So it was fun to point that out, and have the players say, "but that's near Sandpoint, and that's not land-locked!"

By this point, I was also trying to make it very clear that the "lighthouse" in Sandpoint was a hellfire flume used by the runelords, which further makes it clear that Sandpoint was a strategic military location. All of this may send them back to see if they can get information or find out what Mockmurian had learned.

However, if all that falls through, don't forget that the module says that delays in returning = Father Zantus gets a Sending spell cast to tell them to return. So at least for this part of the game, they players don't need to be motivated, and don't need to be interested in the notes or the library. If they just blow it all of or go in the wrong direction, they'd have all of a single day to wander or waste time, and then poof, Zantus puts them on the right track.

Thank you Melkiador. This is very convincing. I appreciate the help.

Thank you! I always thought cold immunity just removed hit point damage. I had no idea that it also shut off any other cold-based effects, but I looked it up and you're right.

Follow up question. The blizzard is centered on the dragon. (From the rules: "This creates heavy snow conditions in a 50-foot radius for 1 minute, centered on the dragon.") So does this move with the dragon? It's centered on the dragon for the full 1 minute, as if it were an emanation instead of a burst?

An ancient white dragon has an ability called blizzard. When an ancient white dragon creates a blizzard, it centers on him, and has a fifty-foot radius. The major effect of this blizzard is that it cuts movement down to a quarter speed. Does this slowing also affect the dragon? Also, since we are in the rules forum, can you cite a source one way or the other?

Askar, thanks!

All my players have around +12 to +18 to will saves, so I'll probably skip things like Calm Emotions, as it's very low odds for them to fail their saves. (For example, the yeth hounds have a howl attack with a DC 16 will save -- I made every player roll 6 saves, one per yeth hound, and only the animal companion failed. I watched the rolls, they legit failed only 1 out of 30 rolls, because basically anything except a 1 or 2 was a success for most of them.)

Your item #4 is I think from your own house rules. Your item #2 is really good, and you'll see below I've gone nuts with it.

Revised Scribbler

I didn't want to rebuild into a new character sheet, as the players have already encountered him and I want them to feel that they are indeed still fighting the same dude. However, the Scribbler is a plain old cleric, and that means all new spells on a new day. So I've revised the spell list under what I'd call a desperate last-ditch effort to not die. This involves LOTS of buffs -- half the list will be pre-cast -- and lots of summoned allies.

Normally I wouldn't do this, as I don't think the Scribbler is what I'd call a "boss fight." However, they attacked him and then left him unattended, alone, for 24 hours. Now they're back, have triggered his alarms, and are taking time searching rooms. The Scribbler has TONS of time to get this right, and he should be motivated! So, here is the list, and I'll explain it afterwards:

6th: animate objects, heal, planar ally, stoneskin (D).

5th: caustic blood, flame strike, greater magic weapon (extended), righteous might (D), spell resistance.

4th: freedom of movement, spell immunity (vs. scrying, fireball, magic missile) (D), summon monster IV x3 (1d4+1 earth elementals), tongues.

3rd: blindness/deafness x2 (DC 21), dispel magic, magic vestment (D), protection from energy, stone shape x2.

2nd: bear’s endurance, bull’s strength, grace, invisibility (D), resist energy x3.

1st: cure light wounds, disguise self (DC 19) (D), obscuring mist, protection from good, sanctuary (DC 19), shield of faith x2.

0th: bleed (DC 18), guidance, light, read magic.

EXTRA: Trickery domain, Master’s Illusion (Sp): Cast veil, DC 24!

The letter D in parenthesis is denoting the domain spells. Anything with strikethrough lines is pre-cast before the fight even happens.

Pre-combat explained

He's sacrificing some of his original spells -- for example, there is no extended magic vestment -- he needs the 5th level slot, so he's got a normal magic vestment in the 3rd level slot now. It sucks for him if he's caught unawares and the spells are not cast or have run out, but he's gotta rely on his alarm spells to help keep him aware & ready. Desperate times, desperate measures.

SO. Some thinking about these pre-buffs. Planar ally will get him a hezrou demon by: promising riches from Lamashtu, AND agreeing that the demon can ditch the fight when it's down to about 20% of its max HP. Demon can only last 2 rounds against the bloodrager, but that's the best help I can find.

Animate objects will couple with stone shape because Scribbler really has no materials to work with, so we'll have him stone shape a golem-looking monster from the cave walls. The volume of material is normally too great for Stone Shape, but we'll be using stone shape just to separate a golem-shaped outline away from the walls -- essentially using a couple of stone shapes as a cut-out, to keep the volume of stone manipulated low enough for the spell. If I animate 1 huge block of stone, and if I accept some flaws/vulnerabilities in the construct (such as vulnerability to fire or positive energy) I can get enough construction points to give it an adamantine-like shell so that it has DR 20. The bloodrager will still cut this down in about 3 rounds, maybe 2. But again, better than nothing.

Caustic blood doles out 12d6 damage every time the Scribbler is hit -- assuming the bloodrager saves every time it'll only be about 6d6 damage, but since the bloodrager gets 3 or 4 hits per round, that'll be maybe 18d6 damage total, or about 63 points of damage per round. The bloodrager can ignore that damage for about 3 to 5 rounds before needing healing.

We'll give the Scribbler resist energy vs. cold, electricity, and acid. We'll skip fire because we also have spell immunity to fireball.

LASTLY, the part that is wimpy but fun. I'll couple tongues with summon monster IV so that he can summon TONS of small-sized earth elementals while in hiding, and use terran to speak with the elementals, telling them to move through the ground to surprise the PCs and get flanks on as many as possible. These elementals are just cannon fodder. They die in 1 hit from most of the PCs. However, with earth mastery and power attack and flank, I can get them to have a decent attack & damage roll. Maybe a few attacks will even succeed -- the idea is just to harry the party and distract them long enough for the Scribbler to get some hits in. With maybe a dozen elementals, even if they just survive 2 rounds, it's good enough and makes for a chaotic scene as they punch out from the walls and floor and so on.

This Scribbler should be difficult to kill, has decent allies even after losing the glabrezu, and should be interesting because he challenges the bloodrager who is over-powered while giving the lower-powered PCs some more effective options. (For example, the bloodrager will struggle a LOT with the DR of the animated object, but any other players who have healing or fire will be able to beat the crap out of it, so it sorta evens the playing field for the PCs, makes 'em feel like they all get a chance to be effective.)

Also, the fact that the elementals move through the stone/earth means they won't get confused by the mist & guards/wards. If the Scribbler tells them to head in a certain direction and tremorsense the PCs, they won't get turned around. So it even plays well with the story of the dungeon.

If anyone wants to steal any of this, or build upon it, please do. Thanks so much for the help!

The PCs fought the Scribber, the glabrezu, and 2 summoned demons. The PCs trounced the monsters hard and the Scribbler teleported away. So here is what the Scribbler knows about the PCs:

• ⚫ The bloodrager PC hit him about 10x with reach & AOOs and the Scribbler almost died from this. Meanwhile, when the Scribber hit the bloodrager, it was mostly irrelevant. Somehow (unknown to the Scribbler) the bloodrager is having damage siphoned off. (The bloodrager has a familiar with the protector archetype, so the Scribbler will need to inflict about 284 HP damage before the bloodrager will go down.)
  
• ⚫ The druid's animal companion has a nearly impossible-to-hit AC (about AC 36) and his 2 demons wasted their lives trying to hit it.
  
• ⚫ The arcanist was blasting the yeth hounds with maximized fireballs.
  
• ⚫ The bard shut off any fear effects.
  

Knowing this, and knowing that the Scribbler has VERY limited mobility and options, what do you think he could do in a rematch? I've tried to limit the party's power by holding them back to level 11 (at this point, they should be level 13). Still, they are game veterans and their builds are so good that I think the Scribbler should see this upcoming fight as essentially suicide. He's lost the glabrezu. He's gonna have to solo this, or have some lame babau demons running interference for a single round before they die.

What can he change/adapt to be better against this party that he KNOWS is coming to kill him?

Oh, and he'll only have 1 day to prepare. The party left, rested overnight, and came back. So he's got 1 night to heal up and do whatever he could to survive.

Thank you guys so much. So, both of us were wrong. I wanted to put the delays in order of who declared them, and the player wanted delays in order of who got the highest in the initiative order. Instead, it looks like ties are resolved the same way they are when you initially set up the initiative; that is, look at the initiative bonus and sort them based on that (falling back to a roll off if needed).

Thanks again!

I have an initiative order like this:

Player A
Enemy 1
Enemy 2
Player B

Player A is at the top of initiative, and goes into delay. Enemy 1 attacks. Enemy 2 goes into delay. Player B's turn begins. Player B fires a quickened Magic Missile at enemy 2, causing enemy 2 to come out of delay. OK, I move enemy 2, so initiative looks like this:

Player A
Enemy 1
Player B
Enemy 2

HOWEVER, enemy 2 can't do anything yet, because player B is still taking his turn. He's only done a swift action spell so far. So now player B continues, does a move action, and then does an attack action. At this point, player A announces, "I come out of delay, I'd like to act." I put him after enemy 2, who previously came out of delay. Initiative now looks like this:

Enemy 1
Player B
Enemy 2
Player A

Enemy 2 and player A are stacked up, both coming out of delay. Player B wraps up his turn with a free action shout to his allies, and I begin to run enemy 2. Player A asks what I'm doing. I say that enemy 2 came out of delay first, so I'm running it. He says "No, my initiative is higher, I go first."

I'm almost certain there are no rules or even FAQs to handle this edge case of 2 delays stacking up, but I'd love it if the forum members could give me their best shot. Is there any info that might help us make an educated guess about the correct ordering?